Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
UCGal
ParticipantI don’t think they’ll be able to afford La Jolla on that rent.
Mira Mesa has a lot of rental units and is moderately priced by San Diego Standards… Why not stay in Mira Mesa.Here’s an example of what’s available in Mira Mesa within the price range.
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/2338649468.htmlIn UTC, with that budget, you’re looking at a 1br… but it’s “La Jolla Adjacent”. LOL
ParticipantI don’t think they’ll be able to afford La Jolla on that rent.
Mira Mesa has a lot of rental units and is moderately priced by San Diego Standards… Why not stay in Mira Mesa.Here’s an example of what’s available in Mira Mesa within the price range.
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/apa/2338649468.htmlIn UTC, with that budget, you’re looking at a 1br… but it’s “La Jolla Adjacent”. LOL
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]Kind of weird that the UT used the present tense in the title. Probably some journalistic stylebook thing. But it should really read, “Personal income in San Diego declined for first time,” since they are actually talking about data from 2009.[/quote]
That was my reaction to the article, also.Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]Kind of weird that the UT used the present tense in the title. Probably some journalistic stylebook thing. But it should really read, “Personal income in San Diego declined for first time,” since they are actually talking about data from 2009.[/quote]
That was my reaction to the article, also.Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]Kind of weird that the UT used the present tense in the title. Probably some journalistic stylebook thing. But it should really read, “Personal income in San Diego declined for first time,” since they are actually talking about data from 2009.[/quote]
That was my reaction to the article, also.Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]Kind of weird that the UT used the present tense in the title. Probably some journalistic stylebook thing. But it should really read, “Personal income in San Diego declined for first time,” since they are actually talking about data from 2009.[/quote]
That was my reaction to the article, also.Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]Kind of weird that the UT used the present tense in the title. Probably some journalistic stylebook thing. But it should really read, “Personal income in San Diego declined for first time,” since they are actually talking about data from 2009.[/quote]
That was my reaction to the article, also.Participant[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.
Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.
Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.
Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.
Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.
Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]UCGal, it would be interesting to know why the City annexed this zip code to themselves and then gave up the inner rectangle with 4S in it while retaining their areas on the west, south and east of it (northern boundary is the lake).
sdlookup refers to the zip as “West Rancho Bernardo” (a community of San Diego).
There was a LOT of money on the table there in teeter funds from property taxes AND CFD monies for police and fire protection.
I don’t understand why the Council let it go. They couldn’t have been feeling too flush what with the Grand Jury investigation into improper voting by the Retirement Board and other assorted “scandals” going on at the time.
It would also be interesting to hear the tape(s) of the Council mtgs where this issue was discussed. What was going thru their minds??
4S homeowners obviously had little, if any say in this as it had to have been decided early on, prior to most of the development there.
If any of the 92127 area is “pink” on a current Thomas Zip Code Guide, the City will have the right to retain the jurisdiction in the future if it is not already incorporated.[/quote]
BG –
The post office (Feds) determine zip code boundaries. Not the city.They have some correlation – but not one to one – in guessing government jurisdiction.
I think you’re confusing things when you look at it strictly by zipcode.
I was curious – so I looked for a map of the city of san diego boundaries… As I said – I don’t know how accurate it is – but it seems accurate. It also roughly matches what I saw on the city website.
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/Another common mistake is to assume school districts follow city boundaries. They don’t. Parts of PQ are in PUSD. Carmel Valley is not in SDUSD even though it’s part of the city.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]UCGal, it would be interesting to know why the City annexed this zip code to themselves and then gave up the inner rectangle with 4S in it while retaining their areas on the west, south and east of it (northern boundary is the lake).
sdlookup refers to the zip as “West Rancho Bernardo” (a community of San Diego).
There was a LOT of money on the table there in teeter funds from property taxes AND CFD monies for police and fire protection.
I don’t understand why the Council let it go. They couldn’t have been feeling too flush what with the Grand Jury investigation into improper voting by the Retirement Board and other assorted “scandals” going on at the time.
It would also be interesting to hear the tape(s) of the Council mtgs where this issue was discussed. What was going thru their minds??
4S homeowners obviously had little, if any say in this as it had to have been decided early on, prior to most of the development there.
If any of the 92127 area is “pink” on a current Thomas Zip Code Guide, the City will have the right to retain the jurisdiction in the future if it is not already incorporated.[/quote]
BG –
The post office (Feds) determine zip code boundaries. Not the city.They have some correlation – but not one to one – in guessing government jurisdiction.
I think you’re confusing things when you look at it strictly by zipcode.
I was curious – so I looked for a map of the city of san diego boundaries… As I said – I don’t know how accurate it is – but it seems accurate. It also roughly matches what I saw on the city website.
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/Another common mistake is to assume school districts follow city boundaries. They don’t. Parts of PQ are in PUSD. Carmel Valley is not in SDUSD even though it’s part of the city.
-
AuthorPosts
