[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]…In the mean time, we saw the birth of the exurb. We filled all the useful space within reach of major cities, up to the edge of federally protected wilderness, with low-density detached housing….[/quote]

I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.

I agree with the rest of your post except for the outcome. I don't think there are enough public/private partnerships in place or enough capital interested in building low-income apts unless the Section 8 program is dramatically expanded. Even if City permit fees were waived, the numbers wouldn't pencil out.

If young families can't afford to live here (in the way they wish to) in the future, they won't. It's as simple as that. Not every region in the country is for everyone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]…In the mean time, we saw the birth of the exurb. We filled all the useful space within reach of major cities, up to the edge of federally protected wilderness, with low-density detached housing….[/quote]

I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.

I agree with the rest of your post except for the outcome. I don't think there are enough public/private partnerships in place or enough capital interested in building low-income apts unless the Section 8 program is dramatically expanded. Even if City permit fees were waived, the numbers wouldn't pencil out.

If young families can't afford to live here (in the way they wish to) in the future, they won't. It's as simple as that. Not every region in the country is for everyone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]…In the mean time, we saw the birth of the exurb. We filled all the useful space within reach of major cities, up to the edge of federally protected wilderness, with low-density detached housing….[/quote]

I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.

I agree with the rest of your post except for the outcome. I don't think there are enough public/private partnerships in place or enough capital interested in building low-income apts unless the Section 8 program is dramatically expanded. Even if City permit fees were waived, the numbers wouldn't pencil out.

If young families can't afford to live here (in the way they wish to) in the future, they won't. It's as simple as that. Not every region in the country is for everyone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Aecetia]That’s where the cowboys are.[/quote]

Yeah, and the military retirees … like Allan ;=}

“SIR!! You may step down now.”

If you feel, as criminal defendant or a party to a lawsuit, that your East Co judge runs their courtroom like the “wild west” you can invoke your ONE “peremptory challenge,” no questions asked (to get one of their lunch-buddies). It’s all in the “luck of the draw.” ;=]

However, the vast majority of SD domestic judges stay only two years in a post and are rotated out.

They have underground (oversized) closed-off-to-the-public pkg spaces to park their vehs in. They just can’t wear their hats while on the bench!

Lol, with a “lifetime” gig such as this … little to no fwy commute, with nearly 100% retirement benefits available (after 30 yrs svc) along with at least 4 weeks “vacation” plus 15-16 holidays per year, why transfer and why retire??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Aecetia]That’s where the cowboys are.[/quote]

Yeah, and the military retirees … like Allan ;=}

“SIR!! You may step down now.”

If you feel, as criminal defendant or a party to a lawsuit, that your East Co judge runs their courtroom like the “wild west” you can invoke your ONE “peremptory challenge,” no questions asked (to get one of their lunch-buddies). It’s all in the “luck of the draw.” ;=]

However, the vast majority of SD domestic judges stay only two years in a post and are rotated out.

They have underground (oversized) closed-off-to-the-public pkg spaces to park their vehs in. They just can’t wear their hats while on the bench!

Lol, with a “lifetime” gig such as this … little to no fwy commute, with nearly 100% retirement benefits available (after 30 yrs svc) along with at least 4 weeks “vacation” plus 15-16 holidays per year, why transfer and why retire??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Aecetia]That’s where the cowboys are.[/quote]

Yeah, and the military retirees … like Allan ;=}

“SIR!! You may step down now.”

If you feel, as criminal defendant or a party to a lawsuit, that your East Co judge runs their courtroom like the “wild west” you can invoke your ONE “peremptory challenge,” no questions asked (to get one of their lunch-buddies). It’s all in the “luck of the draw.” ;=]

However, the vast majority of SD domestic judges stay only two years in a post and are rotated out.

They have underground (oversized) closed-off-to-the-public pkg spaces to park their vehs in. They just can’t wear their hats while on the bench!

Lol, with a “lifetime” gig such as this … little to no fwy commute, with nearly 100% retirement benefits available (after 30 yrs svc) along with at least 4 weeks “vacation” plus 15-16 holidays per year, why transfer and why retire??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Aecetia]That’s where the cowboys are.[/quote]

Yeah, and the military retirees … like Allan ;=}

“SIR!! You may step down now.”

If you feel, as criminal defendant or a party to a lawsuit, that your East Co judge runs their courtroom like the “wild west” you can invoke your ONE “peremptory challenge,” no questions asked (to get one of their lunch-buddies). It’s all in the “luck of the draw.” ;=]

However, the vast majority of SD domestic judges stay only two years in a post and are rotated out.

They have underground (oversized) closed-off-to-the-public pkg spaces to park their vehs in. They just can’t wear their hats while on the bench!

Lol, with a “lifetime” gig such as this … little to no fwy commute, with nearly 100% retirement benefits available (after 30 yrs svc) along with at least 4 weeks “vacation” plus 15-16 holidays per year, why transfer and why retire??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Aecetia]That’s where the cowboys are.[/quote]

Yeah, and the military retirees … like Allan ;=}

“SIR!! You may step down now.”

If you feel, as criminal defendant or a party to a lawsuit, that your East Co judge runs their courtroom like the “wild west” you can invoke your ONE “peremptory challenge,” no questions asked (to get one of their lunch-buddies). It’s all in the “luck of the draw.” ;=]

However, the vast majority of SD domestic judges stay only two years in a post and are rotated out.

They have underground (oversized) closed-off-to-the-public pkg spaces to park their vehs in. They just can’t wear their hats while on the bench!

Lol, with a “lifetime” gig such as this … little to no fwy commute, with nearly 100% retirement benefits available (after 30 yrs svc) along with at least 4 weeks “vacation” plus 15-16 holidays per year, why transfer and why retire??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
For an employer, it’s w-a-a-a-a-y cheaper to pay the “penalty” of $2,000 per employee annually than provide health insurance (beginning in 2014). I predict the majority of employees will take the cash and NOT get health insurance.
[/quote]

Employers don’t have to provide health insurance now.

They will be penalized for not doing so in the future. So employers will have the financial incentives to provide insurance.[/quote]

I don’t think $2,000 per employee is an “adequate enough” penalty to cause an employer (who otherwise wouldn’t or can no longer stay in business if they did) to provide health coverage to all their workers.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]This is what has been going on with uninsured motorists in CA for many years who are “supposed” to have “mandatory” liability coverage. We don’t jail persons who owe fines in CA.[/quote]Uninsured motorists are much less of a problem these days.[/quote]

You must not drive too much in South County. Last time I looked at the minimum liability insurance limits in Mexico, they were $3K total (property damage AND medical payments) per vehicle, assuming the Baja driver actually HAS insurance :={ There is no check of a current auto liability coverage at the border crossings on vehicles entering the US.

See this 1997 GAO letter:

http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf1/159309.pdf

And from an older publication:

The problem of uninsured motorists is well documented in California. A 1995 zip code level survey by the California Department of Insurance found that 28 percent of drivers in that state were uninsured, totaling roughly 5.8 million vehicles statewide. In Los Angeles County, the
figure was 37 percent, and in San Francisco it was nearly 33 percent. Certain zip codes had exceptionally high-uninsured motorist rates. Some areas of Oakland and south central Los Angeles, for instance, had an uninsured motorist rate over 60 percent, while other zip codes in Los Angeles and San Diego had rates in excess of 90 percent.

(emphasis added)

see pg 21: http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/cities/cities.pdf

How has this problem changed since 1998?

[quote=briansd1]Vehicle registration is automatically canceled when a car in uninsured.[/quote]

So what. This doesn’t prevent their owner(s) from getting in and driving. “Uninsured motorists” are not on law enforcement “hot lists” like stolen vehicles are. They have enough to do without policing uninsured motorists.

[quote=briansd1]Insurance companies report electronically to the DMV.[/quote]

And …?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
For an employer, it’s w-a-a-a-a-y cheaper to pay the “penalty” of $2,000 per employee annually than provide health insurance (beginning in 2014). I predict the majority of employees will take the cash and NOT get health insurance.
[/quote]

Employers don’t have to provide health insurance now.

They will be penalized for not doing so in the future. So employers will have the financial incentives to provide insurance.[/quote]

I don’t think $2,000 per employee is an “adequate enough” penalty to cause an employer (who otherwise wouldn’t or can no longer stay in business if they did) to provide health coverage to all their workers.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]This is what has been going on with uninsured motorists in CA for many years who are “supposed” to have “mandatory” liability coverage. We don’t jail persons who owe fines in CA.[/quote]Uninsured motorists are much less of a problem these days.[/quote]

You must not drive too much in South County. Last time I looked at the minimum liability insurance limits in Mexico, they were $3K total (property damage AND medical payments) per vehicle, assuming the Baja driver actually HAS insurance :={ There is no check of a current auto liability coverage at the border crossings on vehicles entering the US.

See this 1997 GAO letter:

http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf1/159309.pdf

And from an older publication:

The problem of uninsured motorists is well documented in California. A 1995 zip code level survey by the California Department of Insurance found that 28 percent of drivers in that state were uninsured, totaling roughly 5.8 million vehicles statewide. In Los Angeles County, the
figure was 37 percent, and in San Francisco it was nearly 33 percent. Certain zip codes had exceptionally high-uninsured motorist rates. Some areas of Oakland and south central Los Angeles, for instance, had an uninsured motorist rate over 60 percent, while other zip codes in Los Angeles and San Diego had rates in excess of 90 percent.

(emphasis added)

see pg 21: http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/cities/cities.pdf

How has this problem changed since 1998?

[quote=briansd1]Vehicle registration is automatically canceled when a car in uninsured.[/quote]

So what. This doesn’t prevent their owner(s) from getting in and driving. “Uninsured motorists” are not on law enforcement “hot lists” like stolen vehicles are. They have enough to do without policing uninsured motorists.

[quote=briansd1]Insurance companies report electronically to the DMV.[/quote]

And …?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
For an employer, it’s w-a-a-a-a-y cheaper to pay the “penalty” of $2,000 per employee annually than provide health insurance (beginning in 2014). I predict the majority of employees will take the cash and NOT get health insurance.
[/quote]

Employers don’t have to provide health insurance now.

They will be penalized for not doing so in the future. So employers will have the financial incentives to provide insurance.[/quote]

I don’t think $2,000 per employee is an “adequate enough” penalty to cause an employer (who otherwise wouldn’t or can no longer stay in business if they did) to provide health coverage to all their workers.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]This is what has been going on with uninsured motorists in CA for many years who are “supposed” to have “mandatory” liability coverage. We don’t jail persons who owe fines in CA.[/quote]Uninsured motorists are much less of a problem these days.[/quote]

You must not drive too much in South County. Last time I looked at the minimum liability insurance limits in Mexico, they were $3K total (property damage AND medical payments) per vehicle, assuming the Baja driver actually HAS insurance :={ There is no check of a current auto liability coverage at the border crossings on vehicles entering the US.

See this 1997 GAO letter:

http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf1/159309.pdf

And from an older publication:

The problem of uninsured motorists is well documented in California. A 1995 zip code level survey by the California Department of Insurance found that 28 percent of drivers in that state were uninsured, totaling roughly 5.8 million vehicles statewide. In Los Angeles County, the
figure was 37 percent, and in San Francisco it was nearly 33 percent. Certain zip codes had exceptionally high-uninsured motorist rates. Some areas of Oakland and south central Los Angeles, for instance, had an uninsured motorist rate over 60 percent, while other zip codes in Los Angeles and San Diego had rates in excess of 90 percent.

(emphasis added)

see pg 21: http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/cities/cities.pdf

How has this problem changed since 1998?

[quote=briansd1]Vehicle registration is automatically canceled when a car in uninsured.[/quote]

So what. This doesn’t prevent their owner(s) from getting in and driving. “Uninsured motorists” are not on law enforcement “hot lists” like stolen vehicles are. They have enough to do without policing uninsured motorists.

[quote=briansd1]Insurance companies report electronically to the DMV.[/quote]

And …?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
For an employer, it’s w-a-a-a-a-y cheaper to pay the “penalty” of $2,000 per employee annually than provide health insurance (beginning in 2014). I predict the majority of employees will take the cash and NOT get health insurance.
[/quote]

Employers don’t have to provide health insurance now.

They will be penalized for not doing so in the future. So employers will have the financial incentives to provide insurance.[/quote]

I don’t think $2,000 per employee is an “adequate enough” penalty to cause an employer (who otherwise wouldn’t or can no longer stay in business if they did) to provide health coverage to all their workers.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]This is what has been going on with uninsured motorists in CA for many years who are “supposed” to have “mandatory” liability coverage. We don’t jail persons who owe fines in CA.[/quote]Uninsured motorists are much less of a problem these days.[/quote]

You must not drive too much in South County. Last time I looked at the minimum liability insurance limits in Mexico, they were $3K total (property damage AND medical payments) per vehicle, assuming the Baja driver actually HAS insurance :={ There is no check of a current auto liability coverage at the border crossings on vehicles entering the US.

See this 1997 GAO letter:

http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf1/159309.pdf

And from an older publication:

The problem of uninsured motorists is well documented in California. A 1995 zip code level survey by the California Department of Insurance found that 28 percent of drivers in that state were uninsured, totaling roughly 5.8 million vehicles statewide. In Los Angeles County, the
figure was 37 percent, and in San Francisco it was nearly 33 percent. Certain zip codes had exceptionally high-uninsured motorist rates. Some areas of Oakland and south central Los Angeles, for instance, had an uninsured motorist rate over 60 percent, while other zip codes in Los Angeles and San Diego had rates in excess of 90 percent.

(emphasis added)

see pg 21: http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/cities/cities.pdf

How has this problem changed since 1998?

[quote=briansd1]Vehicle registration is automatically canceled when a car in uninsured.[/quote]

So what. This doesn’t prevent their owner(s) from getting in and driving. “Uninsured motorists” are not on law enforcement “hot lists” like stolen vehicles are. They have enough to do without policing uninsured motorists.

[quote=briansd1]Insurance companies report electronically to the DMV.[/quote]

And …?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
For an employer, it’s w-a-a-a-a-y cheaper to pay the “penalty” of $2,000 per employee annually than provide health insurance (beginning in 2014). I predict the majority of employees will take the cash and NOT get health insurance.
[/quote]

Employers don’t have to provide health insurance now.

They will be penalized for not doing so in the future. So employers will have the financial incentives to provide insurance.[/quote]

I don’t think $2,000 per employee is an “adequate enough” penalty to cause an employer (who otherwise wouldn’t or can no longer stay in business if they did) to provide health coverage to all their workers.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]This is what has been going on with uninsured motorists in CA for many years who are “supposed” to have “mandatory” liability coverage. We don’t jail persons who owe fines in CA.[/quote]Uninsured motorists are much less of a problem these days.[/quote]

You must not drive too much in South County. Last time I looked at the minimum liability insurance limits in Mexico, they were $3K total (property damage AND medical payments) per vehicle, assuming the Baja driver actually HAS insurance :={ There is no check of a current auto liability coverage at the border crossings on vehicles entering the US.

See this 1997 GAO letter:

http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf1/159309.pdf

And from an older publication:

The problem of uninsured motorists is well documented in California. A 1995 zip code level survey by the California Department of Insurance found that 28 percent of drivers in that state were uninsured, totaling roughly 5.8 million vehicles statewide. In Los Angeles County, the
figure was 37 percent, and in San Francisco it was nearly 33 percent. Certain zip codes had exceptionally high-uninsured motorist rates. Some areas of Oakland and south central Los Angeles, for instance, had an uninsured motorist rate over 60 percent, while other zip codes in Los Angeles and San Diego had rates in excess of 90 percent.

(emphasis added)

see pg 21: http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/cities/cities.pdf

How has this problem changed since 1998?

[quote=briansd1]Vehicle registration is automatically canceled when a car in uninsured.[/quote]

So what. This doesn’t prevent their owner(s) from getting in and driving. “Uninsured motorists” are not on law enforcement “hot lists” like stolen vehicles are. They have enough to do without policing uninsured motorists.

[quote=briansd1]Insurance companies report electronically to the DMV.[/quote]

And …?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]To build a garage, my guy is quoting me roughly:

$1,500 for plans to submit (include parcel research, looking up setbacks, buildable area, etc…

$500 if he does the permitting process.

He thinks the city fees will be about $1,200 (up to a max of 5 inspections during the building process).

Of course the cost to build the structure is extra.[/quote]

You can buy your own garage plan for $250 – $400. However, it may need to be “tweaked” a bit by a CAD/CAM operator or engineer for your application (about $50 to $250).

That leaves roughly $2000 for dealing with bureaucracy. What’s your time worth to you, brian?? If it were me, for $2K, I might elect to frequent the planning counter (but I’m the “queen” of bureaucracy, lol)!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]To build a garage, my guy is quoting me roughly:

$1,500 for plans to submit (include parcel research, looking up setbacks, buildable area, etc…

$500 if he does the permitting process.

He thinks the city fees will be about $1,200 (up to a max of 5 inspections during the building process).

Of course the cost to build the structure is extra.[/quote]

You can buy your own garage plan for $250 – $400. However, it may need to be “tweaked” a bit by a CAD/CAM operator or engineer for your application (about $50 to $250).

That leaves roughly $2000 for dealing with bureaucracy. What’s your time worth to you, brian?? If it were me, for $2K, I might elect to frequent the planning counter (but I’m the “queen” of bureaucracy, lol)!

[Author]

Posts