Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 1, 2017 at 1:38 PM in reply to: Is North County Coastal Real Estate Immune to Financial and Political Trends? #806209
Happs
ParticipantListings of similar properties?
Participantbearishgurl: What % of assessed value do you think is fair? Do you think the % of assessed value should be progressive based upon worth? For example, should a $300,000 house be taxed at 1/2 of 1% of $300,000 and should a $3,000,000 house be taxed at 1.5% of 3,000,000?
ParticipantIf Prop 13 were eliminated, what % of current assessed value do you all think is a fair amount for residential property, commercial buildings, raw land, agricultural land, etc?
Speaking of “public housing,” I’m happy that some fortunate and well deserving people will be able to live along the coast in Solana Beach in a forthcoming affordable housing project.
Communities that resist these types of developments and also affordably priced businesses don’t realize that they will end up paying more for goods and services.
ParticipantI don’t know the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction boundaries, but an HOA is suing the Coastal Commission and the city of Solana Beach over a low income housing project they claim is too dense.
ParticipantWhat is the cost of a lawsuit against the city or Coastal Commission?
ParticipantThanks for the suggestion. Have you purchased from them before?
August 21, 2014 at 1:10 AM in reply to: Best way to Communicate With Owners and Effect Change in HOA #777518ParticipantI’ve canvassed the common areas several times but most people seem disinterested or aloof. Only about 5% of the membership shows up at Board meetings. I even proposed the distribution of a homeowner directory, but the few people in the audience didn’t like that suggestion, fearing privacy concerns. If people don’t want to have anything to do with each other and take a non chalant attitude toward HOA issues, then how is a Board supposed to govern effectively?
ParticipantI think the Isla Verde area of Solana Beach (east of I-5, by the Lomas Santa Fe Country Club Golf Course) would be a good fit to what you’re looking for. North of Lomas Santa Fe Drive East of I-5 might also be a candidate.
ParticipantThis article is from yesterdays San Jose Mercury News. Developers are struggling to keep up with new home demand in the Bay Area. Not everyone wants an old house, and there are plenty of them in the Silicon Valley. I say ease restrictions to lessen the new housing shortage.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26133490/bay-area-home-builders-struggle-keep-up-demand
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Happs][quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler]Others want schools for kids etc…
I believe AN
1) had a home
2) had a job.If you have none of the above you move to where you can find one, usually things work out.[/quote]
Absolutely, the newcomer adapts to wherever they are living. If that is a 1150 sf bungalow circa 1947 in SV (as I mentioned before), then so be it.
Newcomers must adapt to any new locale which they have chosen to move to. That “new locale” is not obligated in any way, shape or form to adapt to newcomers’ housing wishes and wants.[/quote]
I would surmise that the state, county and cities are losing out on income and property tax revenue from the lack of housing in Silicon Valley for eager and willing workers who want to move there for high paying jobs. If I was mayor or a county supervisor and there were high tech companies wanting to relocate to my city or county with a bevy of qualified workers in tow, I’d do everything I could to make it easy for them to set up shop. There is no obligation or mandate for government officials to raise or protect property values. If a retired high school teacher’s house suddenly loses value due to the construction of a large tract across the street, so be it.[/quote]
Well Happs, according to a link on this thread which you provided:
[quote=Happs]Lots of office, retail, hotel and residential projects underway in the city of Santa Clara. Every little bit of new inventory helps if you’re looking to rent/buy.
http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=2495
[/quote]. . . the City of Santa Clara has permitted a dozen or more infill projects currently in progress (both commercial and multifamily). The problem with putting new tracts in SV is that they likely will be infill because there isn’t any more land available for new subdivisions. As such, there is nothing to prevent the existing housing there commanding a premium in both rents and resale prices. I really believe there IS enough housing in SV for ALL of its workers. Many of them are just making the choice to live elsewhere (SF proper, SJ and beyond and East Bay). An employer can’t dictate where their new hires choose to move to or how far away from work they choose to live.[/quote]
The infill development in the city of Santa Clara is a good start to addressing the housing shortage, but it’s a drop in the bucket. Restrictive development regulations need to be eased, open space preserves need to be built on, growth boundaries eliminated etc to address the housing shortage. Silicon Valley will always be a desirable place to live due to jobs, weather and proximity to premier universities. There’s a plethora of open space in the Silicon Valley that could be built upon if politicians and voters didn’t have such a pro-environmental bent.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler]Others want schools for kids etc…
I believe AN
1) had a home
2) had a job.If you have none of the above you move to where you can find one, usually things work out.[/quote]
Absolutely, the newcomer adapts to wherever they are living. If that is a 1150 sf bungalow circa 1947 in SV (as I mentioned before), then so be it.
Newcomers must adapt to any new locale which they have chosen to move to. That “new locale” is not obligated in any way, shape or form to adapt to newcomers’ housing wishes and wants.[/quote]
I would surmise that the state, county and cities are losing out on income and property tax revenue from the lack of housing in Silicon Valley for eager and willing workers who want to move there for high paying jobs. If I was mayor or a county supervisor and there were high tech companies wanting to relocate to my city or county with a bevy of qualified workers in tow, I’d do everything I could to make it easy for them to set up shop. There is no obligation or mandate for government officials to raise or protect property values. If a retired high school teacher’s house suddenly loses value due to the construction of a large tract across the street, so be it.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Happs] . . . San Marcos for example is priced appropriately compared to more upscale areas of North County, but it’s not appropriately priced correlated to wages/salaries in the area. Why would an electrician move to San Marcos when he/she could move to the suburbs of Las Vegas and purchase an equal size house that’s roughly the same age for half price? Yes, I know it’s over 100 degrees in the summer in Las Vegas, but it does get in the mid to upper 80’s regularly in San Marcos in the summer with high humidity. Even in San Marcos, Santee, Lakeside, etc, high housing prices make it difficult for a veterinary assistant to afford housing, even an apartment. . . .[/quote]
Happs, I can think of dozens of reasons why one would rather live in SD than LV, none of which have to do with housing. And I don’t believe most (experienced) electricians are low or moderate-income individuals. If fact, their salaries are comparable to engineers or above. As you know, the difference (and quality of life) between SD and LV are night and day. The problem with LV is that “summer” is 6-7 months per year, minimum (Apr thru Oct). What do you consider “high housing prices” for a service worker? What about high rent? Electricians and veterinary assistants are professions, not min wage service jobs. There has ALWAYS been a disconnect between salaries and wages offered and available housing for rent or sale in the SD region vs other CA coastal regions. Nothing has changed in this regard except the current and upcoming captive audience for homebuying (Gen Y’s and newcomers’) “housing expectations.” They were “trained” to expect new housing to choose from by Big Development. Previous generations didn’t have an endless smorgasbord of *newer* housing to choose from when they were the age Gen Y is now and we’re all still around and doing okay.
Happs, would YOU move to Las Vegas? Just wondering ….[/quote]
If I was an electrician, I would move to Las Vegas over San Marcos because I don’t think hourly rates for an owner operator licensed electrician are that much less in Las Vegas vs San Marcos, but housing is about half. There are lot of people who don’t really care about quality of life and just move to another city because it’s cheap. There are probably lots of people (perhaps even electricians) who moved to Las Vegas in the last 10 years from inland Southern California who don’t gamble, aren’t too fond of the heat (but grin and bear it) and like the natural landscape but overlook all that for the $$ savings in living costs.
If I was a cardiologist with a successful practice and owned a house in Aviara, no, I would not move to Las Vegas for the $$ savings.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]
San Diego County had enough positive attributes during ALL of its history to attract “newcomers” without having to “lure” them with a constant supply of new construction to choose from. If they want to be here bad enough, they will find a place to live. If they don’t, or don’t want to live in what SD County has to offer, then they won’t move here. It’s their choice. These are the housing conditions in the SF Bay coastal counties and other, more rural but pristine CA counties as well and none of them are going to go BK or lose their population solely because their leaders were good stewards of their environment and thus created a great place to live for their residents. As it should be.[/quote]
It’s not the housing that lured them, it’s the weather, the job prospects, and the image of California that lured them…and all the people before them since the indigenous people of what we now call California. I’m sure the indigenous people would have loved to keep you (and me and everyone else here) out, too, but that’s not how it works, (un)fortunately.
As a native Southern Californian, I have also seen all the overbuilding and the decimation of once-beautiful scenery. The neighborhood in which I grew up was once surrounded by orange groves, corn fields, and strawberry fields that we could play hide-and-seek in at night…not to mention the glorious views from the mountaintops which we would have to hike to because there were no roads. Now, it’s all developed: those hills that were free for us locals to use are now gated developments with expensive homes — they’ll call security the second you step out of your car up there; and those agricultural fields and groves are now condos, hotels, and high-rise offices. I don’t like it, but accept it as a condition of living in such a desirable place.
I also know that while it might be nice for my descendants to inherit property worth a gazillion dollars, this gain would come at the expense of all the families who would have to pay the exorbitant prices that would exist without new development…and I’m just not cool with that.
You say that the newcomers can just move out to the desert or some other far-flung place with cheaper housing and lower-density development, but it goes both ways. People who don’t like all the density and new developments can move to fly-over country to live on a farm, if space is what they’re looking for. Nobody should expect someone else to pay through the nose so that existing homeowners can enjoy ever-rising housing prices and a nice view of the hills over there. That is nobody else’s duty or obligation, not the government’s nor the families who are just looking for a home in which to live and raise their children.
And Mello-Roos taxes are a boon to the old-time land owners and developers. The land owners get to sell to the developers at an inflated price because the cost of infrastructure development isn’t deducted from the price of the land. The developers also get to sell homes for more than they otherwise would because the cost of the homes aren’t discounted as much as they would be if the cost of the infrastructure were factored into the total price (the “how much a month” club never seems to care much about total price). The benefits of MR are shared between these two parties, and the hapless and hopeless new buyers continue to overpay because financing these costs over decades “makes it more affordable.” :([/quote]
CAR, I agree with much of what you are saying here, EXCEPT that the older established areas are NOT losing value because of the presence far-flung, more “affordable” housing tracts within the same county. In other words, all the overbuilding we have experienced did NOT keep values in established areas (and thus prices which longtime owners situated in these often coveted areas will accept) down. It did nothing to prevent a future heir from inheriting a residential property now worth a “gazillion dollars” in an established area.
I never stated that newcomers should move to far-flung outer lizardia. What I stated, essentially, is that SD County (mostly out of the coastal zones) has numerous areas in which the existing housing is priced appropriately for them, ie parts of Santee, Lemon Grove, Spring Valley, parts of El Cajon, Lakeside, San Marcos, Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, etc, and, to a lesser extent, South County cities to a lesser extent. Moderate income newcomers who want to buy a house for their families don’t have to move very far at all from the urban core or job centers. There are plenty of listings in all of these areas. They’re not entitled to new construction just because they have “arrived” here, nor was I. I never stated housing was a “lure” for newcomers but that Big Development’s mantra has always been, “Build them and they will come.”
There was no reason that the leaders of San Diego County and its cities needed to approve so many subdivisions. Especially since “new housing” is not the major “lure” for newcomers to this region. Even LA County and the OC planned their rate of growth much better than SD did …. especially LA County.
And yes, I am considering moving to the mtns, primarily to be close to skiing and living in surroundings with a bit more “solitude.”[/quote]
San Marcos for example is priced appropriately compared to more upscale areas of North County, but it’s not appropriately priced correlated to wages/salaries in the area. Why would an electrician move to San Marcos when he/she could move to the suburbs of Las Vegas and purchase an equal size house that’s roughly the same age for half price? Yes, I know it’s over 100 degrees in the summer in Las Vegas, but it does get in the mid to upper 80’s regularly in San Marcos in the summer with high humidity. Even in San Marcos, Santee, Lakeside, etc, high housing prices make it difficult for a veterinary assistant to afford housing, even an apartment. Speaking of affordable housing, there is an interesting editorial in the San Union Tribune from yesterday which advocated for a free market solution to affordable housing. Free market meaning economic growth. Textbook wise, economic growth should lift all boats, but it hasn’t in the last 30 years, since wages/salaries haven’t increased for the bottom 50% . I like the suggestion in the public comment section below the article of eliminating Prop 13 for second home owners. I also advocate means testing it as well, having it only apply to recorded owners who earn have an adjusted gross income of under $100,0000.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/10/linkage-fee-affordable-housing-compromise/
ParticipantBased on this article, residents of Aspen also don’t seem too keen on providing housing for immigrant workers in their town.
Another article mentions low wage workers in Aspen being shortchanged on wages.
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/161360
I agree that residents should protect their quality of life, but if the free market offers too few dwelling units for low wage workers, are residents of these town prepared to pay high prices for a burger or a pizza or have little to no affordable restaurants in their town? Will they mind not having a veterinarian in their town because the assistants can’t afford to live nearby and the vet doesn’t want to pay a higher wage? What is going to incentivize a private developer to offer affordable units in Aspen or Del Mar? I would bet there are a good number of long time residents in upscale NIMBY areas who have the financial statement to live there, but don’t like their town continually going upscale from a retail/services perspective.
-
AuthorPosts