[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] Any “real” increases in SD County’s population now and in the foreseeable future can be accommodated by existing housing (already built), both SFR and multifamily. [/quote]

And why do you think that people are still moving to the outlying areas? Why do you think that people are willing to pay HOA and Mello Roos?

Obviously the existing housing is not meeting the buyers’ needs.[/quote]

I don’t agree, brian. It’s due to the plethora of (often confusing) choices a current homebuyer has. For many who tend to “gravitate” towards a highly-encumbered outlying area when deciding where to buy, they often initially have no idea what they’re actually looking at. If these “exurban” choices weren’t available, the long existing resale market would HAVE to meet their needs (or future needs with a later-built addition). If homebuyers didn’t wish to purchase anything in the current resale market, they would purchase elsewhere or continue to rent locally. That’s what buyers did before “exurbia” was plundered by developers’ bulldozers.

What a buyer “thinks they need” and what they “actually need” are often vastly different. In urban surrounds in the State of Washington, a buyer must buy what is already long there …. or buy nothing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] Any “real” increases in SD County’s population now and in the foreseeable future can be accommodated by existing housing (already built), both SFR and multifamily. [/quote]

And why do you think that people are still moving to the outlying areas? Why do you think that people are willing to pay HOA and Mello Roos?

Obviously the existing housing is not meeting the buyers’ needs.[/quote]

I don’t agree, brian. It’s due to the plethora of (often confusing) choices a current homebuyer has. For many who tend to “gravitate” towards a highly-encumbered outlying area when deciding where to buy, they often initially have no idea what they’re actually looking at. If these “exurban” choices weren’t available, the long existing resale market would HAVE to meet their needs (or future needs with a later-built addition). If homebuyers didn’t wish to purchase anything in the current resale market, they would purchase elsewhere or continue to rent locally. That’s what buyers did before “exurbia” was plundered by developers’ bulldozers.

What a buyer “thinks they need” and what they “actually need” are often vastly different. In urban surrounds in the State of Washington, a buyer must buy what is already long there …. or buy nothing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] Any “real” increases in SD County’s population now and in the foreseeable future can be accommodated by existing housing (already built), both SFR and multifamily. [/quote]

And why do you think that people are still moving to the outlying areas? Why do you think that people are willing to pay HOA and Mello Roos?

Obviously the existing housing is not meeting the buyers’ needs.[/quote]

I don’t agree, brian. It’s due to the plethora of (often confusing) choices a current homebuyer has. For many who tend to “gravitate” towards a highly-encumbered outlying area when deciding where to buy, they often initially have no idea what they’re actually looking at. If these “exurban” choices weren’t available, the long existing resale market would HAVE to meet their needs (or future needs with a later-built addition). If homebuyers didn’t wish to purchase anything in the current resale market, they would purchase elsewhere or continue to rent locally. That’s what buyers did before “exurbia” was plundered by developers’ bulldozers.

What a buyer “thinks they need” and what they “actually need” are often vastly different. In urban surrounds in the State of Washington, a buyer must buy what is already long there …. or buy nothing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor]Don’t quote me on this but i beleive the zoning in unicorporated areas of SD county is hugely restrictive. Something like 5 to 7 acre minimum lot sizes.[/quote]
More than half of Bonita is uninc. The average lot size in this area is about 17-18K. There are still a few subdivision opportunities of current owners in the Proctor Valley area of 91902 (Sunnyside). These lots are currently about 1-3 AC.[/quote]

Ummm, please use a bit of common sense. I was talking about new construction not what has been there for 50 years.[/quote]

You are not reading my post correctly. I stated that current owners still have the option of subdividing. I believe they can turn one 3 AC lot into 3 (or 4) residential parcels, if they wish to go through the process. This is NOT the only uninc area of the county where a current owner can still do this, as long as each parcel will have ingress and egress to the road.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor]Don’t quote me on this but i beleive the zoning in unicorporated areas of SD county is hugely restrictive. Something like 5 to 7 acre minimum lot sizes.[/quote]
More than half of Bonita is uninc. The average lot size in this area is about 17-18K. There are still a few subdivision opportunities of current owners in the Proctor Valley area of 91902 (Sunnyside). These lots are currently about 1-3 AC.[/quote]

Ummm, please use a bit of common sense. I was talking about new construction not what has been there for 50 years.[/quote]

You are not reading my post correctly. I stated that current owners still have the option of subdividing. I believe they can turn one 3 AC lot into 3 (or 4) residential parcels, if they wish to go through the process. This is NOT the only uninc area of the county where a current owner can still do this, as long as each parcel will have ingress and egress to the road.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor]Don’t quote me on this but i beleive the zoning in unicorporated areas of SD county is hugely restrictive. Something like 5 to 7 acre minimum lot sizes.[/quote]
More than half of Bonita is uninc. The average lot size in this area is about 17-18K. There are still a few subdivision opportunities of current owners in the Proctor Valley area of 91902 (Sunnyside). These lots are currently about 1-3 AC.[/quote]

Ummm, please use a bit of common sense. I was talking about new construction not what has been there for 50 years.[/quote]

You are not reading my post correctly. I stated that current owners still have the option of subdividing. I believe they can turn one 3 AC lot into 3 (or 4) residential parcels, if they wish to go through the process. This is NOT the only uninc area of the county where a current owner can still do this, as long as each parcel will have ingress and egress to the road.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor]Don’t quote me on this but i beleive the zoning in unicorporated areas of SD county is hugely restrictive. Something like 5 to 7 acre minimum lot sizes.[/quote]
More than half of Bonita is uninc. The average lot size in this area is about 17-18K. There are still a few subdivision opportunities of current owners in the Proctor Valley area of 91902 (Sunnyside). These lots are currently about 1-3 AC.[/quote]

Ummm, please use a bit of common sense. I was talking about new construction not what has been there for 50 years.[/quote]

You are not reading my post correctly. I stated that current owners still have the option of subdividing. I believe they can turn one 3 AC lot into 3 (or 4) residential parcels, if they wish to go through the process. This is NOT the only uninc area of the county where a current owner can still do this, as long as each parcel will have ingress and egress to the road.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor]Don’t quote me on this but i beleive the zoning in unicorporated areas of SD county is hugely restrictive. Something like 5 to 7 acre minimum lot sizes.[/quote]
More than half of Bonita is uninc. The average lot size in this area is about 17-18K. There are still a few subdivision opportunities of current owners in the Proctor Valley area of 91902 (Sunnyside). These lots are currently about 1-3 AC.[/quote]

Ummm, please use a bit of common sense. I was talking about new construction not what has been there for 50 years.[/quote]

You are not reading my post correctly. I stated that current owners still have the option of subdividing. I believe they can turn one 3 AC lot into 3 (or 4) residential parcels, if they wish to go through the process. This is NOT the only uninc area of the county where a current owner can still do this, as long as each parcel will have ingress and egress to the road.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=patb] . . . They may appeal into the court of appeals, but, it’s binding now on all the 62 supreme courts.[/quote]

patb, I don’t know how the court hierarchy is structured in NY, but, based on your post, I don’t see how one “Supreme” court’s decision in one county in NY could be binding upon other judges in the same state. Is the opinion published? Acc to your post, it hasn’t even been appealed yet. Defendants MERS (and lender) have a right of appeal and they may very well do so. It sounds like the “fat lady” has not yet sung on this one.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=patb] . . . They may appeal into the court of appeals, but, it’s binding now on all the 62 supreme courts.[/quote]

patb, I don’t know how the court hierarchy is structured in NY, but, based on your post, I don’t see how one “Supreme” court’s decision in one county in NY could be binding upon other judges in the same state. Is the opinion published? Acc to your post, it hasn’t even been appealed yet. Defendants MERS (and lender) have a right of appeal and they may very well do so. It sounds like the “fat lady” has not yet sung on this one.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=patb] . . . They may appeal into the court of appeals, but, it’s binding now on all the 62 supreme courts.[/quote]

patb, I don’t know how the court hierarchy is structured in NY, but, based on your post, I don’t see how one “Supreme” court’s decision in one county in NY could be binding upon other judges in the same state. Is the opinion published? Acc to your post, it hasn’t even been appealed yet. Defendants MERS (and lender) have a right of appeal and they may very well do so. It sounds like the “fat lady” has not yet sung on this one.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=patb] . . . They may appeal into the court of appeals, but, it’s binding now on all the 62 supreme courts.[/quote]

patb, I don’t know how the court hierarchy is structured in NY, but, based on your post, I don’t see how one “Supreme” court’s decision in one county in NY could be binding upon other judges in the same state. Is the opinion published? Acc to your post, it hasn’t even been appealed yet. Defendants MERS (and lender) have a right of appeal and they may very well do so. It sounds like the “fat lady” has not yet sung on this one.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=patb] . . . They may appeal into the court of appeals, but, it’s binding now on all the 62 supreme courts.[/quote]

patb, I don’t know how the court hierarchy is structured in NY, but, based on your post, I don’t see how one “Supreme” court’s decision in one county in NY could be binding upon other judges in the same state. Is the opinion published? Acc to your post, it hasn’t even been appealed yet. Defendants MERS (and lender) have a right of appeal and they may very well do so. It sounds like the “fat lady” has not yet sung on this one.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]But 4S has an HOA and mello roos which by default makes it object of BG’s ire.[/quote]

Now that you bring it up, 4S has nearly the HIGHEST MR in the county. Thank you for clarifying :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]But 4S has an HOA and mello roos which by default makes it object of BG’s ire.[/quote]

Now that you bring it up, 4S has nearly the HIGHEST MR in the county. Thank you for clarifying :=]

[Author]

Posts