Paying off Mello Roos

User Forum Topic
Submitted by paranoid on February 27, 2012 - 7:39pm

Interest rate is historic low now. MR in places like 4S ranch has a 40-year life, and has a rate close to 10% (my rough guestimate). MR can be increased by 2% every year. So my question is: is it worth it to pay off completely your MR now? This saves alot of money if you intend to stay for a long time. What do you guys think?

Submitted by ocrenter on June 17, 2013 - 1:04pm.

earlyretirement wrote:
FYI, the reporter did a follow up story on Mello-Roos here.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jun/17/mello-roos-law-allows-vote-one-decide-new-taxes/

ER, thanks for the follow up link.

My burning question after reading that piece is this:

So the original formation of the CFD required a vote, which is fine. But what about a possible extension, that would require a vote by the CFD district, right? which would be fully populated with actual voters instead of the vote of 1 scenario the article illustrated.

Submitted by earlyretirement on June 17, 2013 - 1:11pm.

ocrenter wrote:
earlyretirement wrote:
FYI, the reporter did a follow up story on Mello-Roos here.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jun/17/mello-roos-law-allows-vote-one-decide-new-taxes/

ER, thanks for the follow up link.

My burning question after reading that piece is this:

So the original formation of the CFD required a vote, which is fine. But what about a possible extension, that would require a vote by the CFD district, right? which would be fully populated with actual voters instead of the vote of 1 scenario the article illustrated.

Hi OCR. Yes, I am very curious about that as well. I asked Joanne from KPBS if they could address these issues. She said that she would be doing more articles on it addressing several of my questions which is great.

Like you, I'm very curious about it. I think they keep it all fairly murky for a reason. I'm sure that most homeowners that are buying in a CFD area just bite the pill and swallow and accept they have to pay CFD taxes. So they might just accept the fact that they have to pay CFD taxes for the next XX years.

But I'm sure they WOULD care quite a bit if these things can get extended beyond when they originally were told they would be paid off! But again, the sad thing is that most homeowners have no clue about these, when they are slated to be paid off.

And at least taking from the article, at least one homeowner didn't even know when he was being charged over 100% more on his CFD tax. I'm looking forward to reading these future articles on the issue.

Submitted by bearishgurl on June 17, 2013 - 7:28pm.

ER, I think it is wonderful that MR is garnering this much public attention through the local media. In the past, especially during the millenium boom, which occurred during and just after the biggest building boom in SD County history, young buyers signed up for new homes in developers' offices en masse (mostly using a 1st and 2nd TD and putting little to nothing down) and the majority had no idea how much MR was going to cost. Not only did their mortgages (predictably) reset a few years down the line, many of them were completely surprised months after move-in at the monthly outlay they found themselves having to come up with to satisfy MR twice yearly in combination with HOA dues (over and above their regular property taxes and insurance payments). In post 2000 construction, it is not at all uncommon for the combination of MR and HOA to top $700 per month, even for PUDs and condos. As these millenium-boom buyers' loans reset, they stopped paying their mortgages but many stopped paying their taxes, MR and HOA a few months before that in attempt to satisfy their new, higher mortgage payment. Within 8 months of the reset (or often much sooner), their mortgages went into default.

As we all know, $700 can buy a few months worth of diapers and formula, pay for a couple of elementary-age kids' afterschool care, or buy enough gas for a couple of parents in a family to commute their separate ways every weekday or plow into their retirement funds.

If just ONE thing goes wrong in Joe6p's family (complicated pregnancy requiring unpaid maternity leave, involuntary cutback of work hours, loss of ONE of the parent's jobs, uninsured medical expenses, for example), their property taxes (incl MR), homeowner's insurance premiums and HOA dues are the first to go delinquent even the absence of an exploding mortgage reset. I've seen this phenomenon time and time again on new construction tracts purchased btween 2004 and 2006, where impounds were not common because a PM 2nd TD holder put up the 20% downpayment for the buyers.

This is Joe6P and his family we are talking about here. The "wealthy" aren't attracted to stucco boxes situated 6-8 feet from one another out in lizardland, and, in any case, can send their kids to private schools of their choosing.

The news commentator in the link you provided has it right. The title to her investigative series is "Mello-Roos, the Tax You Choose." I've been saying here all along that MR is the "tax you choose" given all other housing choices we have in this huge county. The law allows the bond repayment managers of the CFD's to stretch out the repayment period if it is just repaying the same amount of principal but possibly initially had variable interest rates or I/O terms and they now seek to begin paying on the principal or pay more on the principal, whether or not they refied the loans or are able to refi them.

ER, the reason the bulk of the affected homeowners don't care if the bonds will be paid off in 20, 30, 35 or 40+ years is because they have no intention of owning the property anywhere near that long, so will just pass along whatever duration of the payments left to their buyer. The buyers and new owners who have intentions of owning the longest are those who have two or more children close in age who are just starting public school or about to. If their kids are currently 0, 2, 4 and 5, then the longest they would have to stay to get all their kids through the public school system would be about 18 years. A LOT of families buy into these tracts when their kids are already enrolled in school and thus, would only need to own for 10 years or less to get their kids through school. After the kids are done with school, there is no reason whatsoever to continue to pay exorbitant MR, such as in that Del Sur tract which was the original subject of the news investigation.

The VAST majority of buyers signing up for MR, especially MR over $100 per month, are those with children who will attend the newer schools that the MR was used to build. All other subsets of buyers have no "need" to throw all that money (in MR) every month down the drain. I find it sad that so many homebuyers today feel they have to pay hundreds of dollars per month over and above their property tax bills just for the privilege of their children attending a PUBLIC school. It's akin to extortion in my book ... but then you have all these "willing participants" who "choose" to pay it in light of all the available alternatives :=0

Submitted by earlyretirement on June 17, 2013 - 8:27pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
ER, I think it is wonderful that MR is garnering this much public attention through the local media. In the past, especially during the millenium boom, which occurred during and just after the biggest building boom in SD County history, young buyers signed up for new homes in developers' offices en masse (mostly using a 1st and 2nd TD and putting little to nothing down) and the majority had no idea how much MR was going to cost. Not only did their mortgages (predictably) reset a few years down the line, many of them were completely surprised months after move-in at the monthly outlay they found themselves having to come up with to satisfy MR twice yearly in combination with HOA dues (over and above their regular property taxes and insurance payments). In post 2000 construction, it is not at all uncommon for the combination of MR and HOA to top $700 per month, even for PUDs and condos. As these millenium-boom buyers' loans reset, they stopped paying their mortgages but many stopped paying their taxes, MR and HOA a few months before that in attempt to satisfy their new, higher mortgage payment. Within 8 months of the reset (or often much sooner), their mortgages went into default.

As we all know, $700 can buy a few months worth of diapers and formula, pay for a couple of elementary-age kids' afterschool care, or buy enough gas for a couple of parents in a family to commute their separate ways every weekday or plow into their retirement funds.

If just ONE thing goes wrong in Joe6p's family (complicated pregnancy requiring unpaid maternity leave, involuntary cutback of work hours, loss of ONE of the parent's jobs, uninsured medical expenses, for example), their property taxes (incl MR), homeowner's insurance premiums and HOA dues are the first to go delinquent even the absence of an exploding mortgage reset. I've seen this phenomenon time and time again on new construction tracts purchased btween 2004 and 2006, where impounds were not common because a PM 2nd TD holder put up the 20% downpayment for the buyers.

This is Joe6P and his family we are talking about here. The "wealthy" aren't attracted to stucco boxes situated 6-8 feet from one another out in lizardland, and, in any case, can send their kids to private schools of their choosing.

The news commentator in the link you provided has it right. The title to her investigative series is "Mello-Roos, the Tax You Choose." I've been saying here all along that MR is the "tax you choose" given all other housing choices we have in this huge county. The law allows the bond repayment managers of the CFD's to stretch out the repayment period if it is just repaying the same amount of principal but possibly initially had variable interest rates or I/O terms and they now seek to begin paying on the principal or pay more on the principal, whether or not they refied the loans or are able to refi them.

ER, the reason the bulk of the affected homeowners don't care if the bonds will be paid off in 20, 30, 35 or 40+ years is because they have no intention of owning the property anywhere near that long, so will just pass along whatever duration of the payments left to their buyer. The buyers and new owners who have intentions of owning the longest are those who have two or more children close in age who are just starting public school or about to. If their kids are currently 0, 2, 4 and 5, then the longest they would have to stay to get all their kids through the public school system would be about 18 years. A LOT of families buy into these tracts when their kids are already enrolled in school and thus, would only need to own for 10 years or less to get their kids through school. After the kids are done with school, there is no reason whatsoever to continue to pay exorbitant MR, such as in that Del Sur tract which was the original subject of the news investigation.

The VAST majority of buyers signing up for MR, especially MR over $100 per month, are those with children who will attend the newer schools that the MR was used to build. All other subsets of buyers have no "need" to throw all that money (in MR) every month down the drain. I find it sad that so many homebuyers today feel they have to pay hundreds of dollars per month over and above their property tax bills just for the privilege of their children attending a PUBLIC school. It's akin to extortion in my book ... but then you have all these "willing participants" who "choose" to pay it in light of all the available alternatives :=0

BG,

I totally agree that I'm happy that KPBS is covering this topic. A topic that most people in San Diego probably know NOTHING about and don't care to know anything about.

I actually understand the need for Mello Roos taxes and actually I agree with them. HOWEVER, only if they are paid off by the original pay off dates.

People are free to choose if they want to live in a MR or not so people DO have options. I know you HATE these areas BG but I actually am one of those homeowners that is THRILLED with my decision to buy in a MR area and I find it well worth it.

The excellent schools were one factor in buying where we did but it wasn't the only reason. We LOVE LOVE LOVE the area. I think it's kind of funny you always call this Lizardland and always make it seem like it's so far away and so distant. LOL.

I'm looking forward to reading more stories about Mello Roos taxes. I'm especially looking forward to hearing under which circumstances the CFD's can be extended past their ORIGINAL pay off dates.

I do agree with you that probably many owners don't really think past a few years or plan to sell their houses when they are empty nesters but you can't paint everyone in that same picture because we know several people that own here in our area and they never have plans to move out of the area. Mello Roos or no Mello Roos.

You just have to remember BG that there are a lot of people that wouldn't accept to live in certain parts of San Diego even if you gave them a free house. They would much rather live where they do paying a mortgage vs. taking a perfectly fine house in an area like Chula Vista. In fact, I'm one of those people. Even if you gave me the option of a FREE perfectly fine house in Chula Vista and promise to pay all property taxes.... I'd opt not to take it and pay a mortgage instead along with any applicable taxes. Nothing wrong with that...it's just the way it is.

Submitted by bearishgurl on June 17, 2013 - 9:25pm.

ER, I viewed three of your SantaLuz videos last night. SantaLuz cannot be compared to the Del Sur tract that the newswoman is investigating for MR overcharges as they are apples and oranges for a variety of reasons.

SantaLuz (the SFRs at least) are situated on spacious lots, thus you aren't listening to your neighbors' toilet flush. A (renowned?) golf course designer came into the picture early on (before housing was even in the picture) and created a world class golf course to run with the lay of the land. You have a full-service gym/spa on site as well as a restaurant which serves only the residents and their guests. I think it is interesting that young families (mostly newcomers to SD?) ultimately decided to buy into SantaLuz and the comaraderie among neighbors is very good due to all of the organized community activities. However, I personally would not like living behind a guarded gate (and we DO have a few of these type of subdivisions in South County, btw). Insomuch that your neighbors cannot store their non-running vehicles in front of their houses, for example, is a blessing, you are paying HIGH HOA dues ($440 mo for a SFR?) for enforcement of those covenants, conditions and restrictions. But you are correct in that you are getting tangible services (cable TV, broadband internet and trash P/U) for the money as well as the full service gym with classes, pool and jacuzzis (along with availability of on-site trainers, golf pros and masseuses, for example) is very nice. I don't golf but would find the rest very convenient. And I was intrigued by the round-lot concept, capturing distant ocean and surrounding views since the development appears to sit up pretty high.

And for you (unlike the masses who purchase[d] elsewhere in 92127), I would leave the public schools issue out of the equation because you made an early payoff of your obligations to the CFDs encumbering your property and it was formally accepted as "paid in full." Whether or not a buyer will pay you for your trouble and expense is immaterial in your case, IMO. The reason being that the PUSD is in deep sh!t and will remain so far into the future (which is not your problem anymore). You have kid(s) who are or will ostensibly attend the public schools there and so ~$60K is not that great of a cash outlay in light of the fact that you state will hold your property longer than ten years.

From your videos, it truly DOES appear that buyers in SantaLuz buy into a "convenient lifestyle" over buying just a home. However, I'll bet if you ask your "buddy" in LG whether he would choose to buy in SantaLuz (if he could afford it) knowing it would cost him an additional ~$940 month in MR/HOA, that he would say no. I can see how younger buyers with minor children took the place of the "empty nester" buyers the development originally expected would be its target market. No matter how "well-heeled," the mindset of many "empty nesters" who are already retired to soon to be retired is of conserving funds, not throwing ~$940 month to the wind. Especially in light of the low-interest environment we have today. You have to take into account that not only does this group not know if they will ever be able to enter the job market again (even on a part-time basis), they don't know how long they will live and thus how long their funds need to last. For these reasons, it is folly for many in this demographic to throw ~$940 month out the window (or even $800, considering they were going to pay for cable/trash elsewhere) to live in a development where they may or may not regularly use its amenities.

I did enjoy the videos and thought your community was well-planned, ER. Many of your "brethren" in the rest of 92127 are no doubt paying just $100 to $150 less than you are every month in MR/HOA and not getting anywhere near level of amenities you are privy to OR the spacious lots. For this reason alone, I think you got a good deal for the house and lifestyle that you and your family wanted.

Submitted by bearishgurl on June 17, 2013 - 9:59pm.

earlyretirement wrote:
...You just have to remember BG that there are a lot of people that wouldn't accept to live in certain parts of San Diego even if you gave them a free house. They would much rather live where they do paying a mortgage vs. taking a perfectly fine house in an area like Chula Vista. In fact, I'm one of those people. Even if you gave me the option of a FREE perfectly fine house in Chula Vista and promise to pay all property taxes.... I'd opt not to take it and pay a mortgage instead along with any applicable taxes. Nothing wrong with that...it's just the way it is.

ER, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but about 5/8 of Chula Vista's residential property owners pay MR. It WAS more like 2/3 of the population as recent as 2006, but since May 2007, ChulaV subdivisions have been retiring their MR bonds one by one.

FYI, developers within the City of Chula Vista (such as Lane Kuhn, Fieldstone and McMillin) DEBUTED the use of MR bonds in San Diego County. The next city to adopt them was Poway. The earlest ChulaV subdivisions built with 20 and 30 yr MR bonds with the first phases being sold in May 1987 (3 subd in Eastlake Shores) and 1991 (2 subd in Eastlake Hills) which have already paid off their MR bonds. RDR-II paid off their (20 yr) street bonds in 2012.

Having worked alongside several of these owners from the beginning, I've seen it all, first hand. The monthly HOA struggles, the HUGE property tax impounds, etc. A few of them hung in there and made it through to the retirement of the bonds but I'm not sure if this makes their properties more "valuable" than similarly-situated ChulaV properties which do not lie in MR areas OR if their kids got a "better" education than they would have had they attended schools in non-MR areas of the same district.

So, in a nutshell, I "get" the concept of MR but don't know/can't measure its true long-term fiscal value to an affected homewoner.

Submitted by earlyretirement on June 17, 2013 - 10:44pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
ER, I viewed three of your SantaLuz videos last night. SantaLuz cannot be compared to the Del Sur tract that the newswoman is investigating for MR overcharges as they are apples and oranges for a variety of reasons.

SantaLuz (the SFRs at least) are situated on spacious lots, thus you aren't listening to your neighbors' toilet flush. A (renowned?) golf course designer came into the picture early on (before housing was even in the picture) and created a world class golf course to run with the lay of the land. You have a full-service gym/spa on site as well as a restaurant which serves only the residents and their guests. I think it is interesting that young families (mostly newcomers to SD?) ultimately decided to buy into SantaLuz and the comaraderie among neighbors is very good due to all of the organized community activities. However, I personally would not like living behind a guarded gate (and we DO have a few of these type of subdivisions in South County, btw). Insomuch that your neighbors cannot store their non-running vehicles in front of their houses, for example, is a blessing, you are paying HIGH HOA dues ($440 mo for a SFR?) for enforcement of those covenants, conditions and restrictions. But you are correct in that you are getting tangible services (cable TV, broadband internet and trash P/U) for the money as well as the full service gym with classes, pool and jacuzzis (along with availability of on-site trainers, golf pros and masseuses, for example) is very nice. I don't golf but would find the rest very convenient. And I was intrigued by the round-lot concept, capturing distant ocean and surrounding views since the development appears to sit up pretty high.

And for you (unlike the masses who purchase[d] elsewhere in 92127), I would leave the public schools issue out of the equation because you made an early payoff of your obligations to the CFDs encumbering your property and it was formally accepted as "paid in full." Whether or not a buyer will pay you for your trouble and expense is immaterial in your case, IMO. The reason being that the PUSD is in deep sh!t and will remain so far into the future (which is not your problem anymore). You have kid(s) who are or will ostensibly attend the public schools there and so ~$60K is not that great of a cash outlay in light of the fact that you state will hold your property longer than ten years.

From your videos, it truly DOES appear that buyers in SantaLuz buy into a "convenient lifestyle" over buying just a home. However, I'll bet if you ask your "buddy" in LG whether he would choose to buy in SantaLuz (if he could afford it) knowing it would cost him an additional ~$940 month in MR/HOA, that he would say no. I can see how younger buyers with minor children took the place of the "empty nester" buyers the development originally expected would be its target market. No matter how "well-heeled," the mindset of many "empty nesters" who are already retired to soon to be retired is of conserving funds, not throwing ~$940 month to the wind. Especially in light of the low-interest environment we have today. You have to take into account that not only does this group not know if they will ever be able to enter the job market again (even on a part-time basis), they don't know how long they will live and thus how long their funds need to last. For these reasons, it is folly for many in this demographic to throw ~$940 month out the window (or even $800, considering they were going to pay for cable/trash elsewhere) to live in a development where they may or may not regularly use its amenities.

I did enjoy the videos and thought your community was well-planned, ER. Many of your "brethren" in the rest of 92127 are no doubt paying just $100 to $150 less than you are every month in MR/HOA and not getting anywhere near level of amenities you are privy to OR the spacious lots. For this reason alone, I think you got a good deal for the house and lifestyle that you and your family wanted.

Hi BG,

Thanks for the thoughts. I TOTALLY agree with you that you can NOT compare Del Sur to Santaluz. Like night and day, IMHO. Although for Mello Roos purposes, I had the CFD #4 and as I understand so do they in parts of Del Sur. Only I believe their CFD exposure is larger I believe.

You know, at first I didn't think I would enjoy the "guard gated" portion as much as I do but I really really love it. It's so extremely safe here. Even contractors that I put on my list can't get in unless I put all of them on the list. (For example, I'd have several contractors with a company and unless I listed all of them specifically they would stop them at the gate and call me).

Having kids I really love how safe it is here. Even nearby Carmel Valley has had a rash of break ins lately but we don't have that problem at all in Santaluz. It is ranked one of the safest communities in all of Southern California.

Oh, my friend in Lemon Grove LOVES Santaluz and he said he would buy here in a heartbeat. Especially if he had kids. Really, I network quite a bit and have had many many friends and colleagues out here and they have all loved it. I know that you've never personally been out to Santaluz but I think even you would admit that it's pretty special (and I know you have no love of this area).

I haven't yet met anyone that didn't like the development. I guess it's not for everyone but so far everyone has been impressed with how the developers designed this community. I really believe it's a special place here in San Diego.

I totally agree with you that not everyone can afford the $900 - $1,000 a month HOA/Mello Roos payments and it's not for everyone. But for those that can afford it, it's really an amazing lifestyle out here.

bearishgurl wrote:
earlyretirement wrote:
...You just have to remember BG that there are a lot of people that wouldn't accept to live in certain parts of San Diego even if you gave them a free house. They would much rather live where they do paying a mortgage vs. taking a perfectly fine house in an area like Chula Vista. In fact, I'm one of those people. Even if you gave me the option of a FREE perfectly fine house in Chula Vista and promise to pay all property taxes.... I'd opt not to take it and pay a mortgage instead along with any applicable taxes. Nothing wrong with that...it's just the way it is.

ER, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but about 5/8 of Chula Vista's residential property owners pay MR. It WAS more like 2/3 of the population as recent as 2006, but since May 2007, ChulaV subdivisions have been retiring their MR bonds one by one.

FYI, developers within the City of Chula Vista (such as Lane Kuhn, Fieldstone and McMillin) DEBUTED the use of MR bonds in San Diego County. The next city to adopt them was Poway. The earlest ChulaV subdivisions built with 20 and 30 yr MR bonds with the first phases being sold in May 1987 (3 subd in Eastlake Shores) and 1991 (2 subd in Eastlake Hills) which have already paid off their MR bonds. RDR-II paid off their (20 yr) street bonds in 2012.

Having worked alongside several of these owners from the beginning, I've seen it all, first hand. The monthly HOA struggles, the HUGE property tax impounds, etc. A few of them hung in there and made it through to the retirement of the bonds but I'm not sure if this makes their properties more "valuable" than similarly-situated ChulaV properties which do not lie in MR areas OR if their kids got a "better" education than they would have had they attended schools in non-MR areas of the same district.

So, in a nutshell, I "get" the concept of MR but don't know/can't measure its true long-term fiscal value to an affected homewoner.

Wow. I knew that Chula Vista did have Mello Roos areas but I didn't realize it was as much as 2/3 at one time.

That is very interesting. BG, to your knowledge, have any CFD areas ever had their bonds extended past their original pay off dates? Thanks for the information.

Submitted by bearishgurl on June 17, 2013 - 10:46pm.

earlyretirement wrote:
...BG, to your knowledge, has any CFD areas ever had their bonds extended past their original pay off dates?

NO! But in 1987-1991, it was not common to use exotic vehicles and/or I/O loans to fund the MR construction bonds. In addition, the community got three fire stations and a YMCA out of the deal. All but one fire station was built in 1992 or prior. Building costs and materials have gone up exponentially since then.

Submitted by earlyretirement on June 17, 2013 - 10:48pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
earlyretirement wrote:
...BG, to your knowledge, has any CFD areas ever had their bonds extended past their original pay off dates?

NO! But in 1987-1991, it was not common to use exotic vehicles and/or I/O loans to fund the MR construction bonds. In addition, the community got three fire stations and a YMCA out of the deal. All but one fire station was built in 1992 or prior. Building costs and materials have gone up exponentially since then.

Thanks. Yep. I agree. Not only have building costs and materials gone up but probably so has the propensity for fraud and abuse! LOL.

I appreciate all of this information. I totally agree with you that it will be interesting to read more stories about this Mello-Roos issue. Most people don't seem to care about this at all as we both noted.

Submitted by ocrenter on June 19, 2013 - 10:56am.

ER, Del Sur will go down in history as one of the most outrageous developments in regard to MR abuse. Compared to Del Sur, one will find a much better value and prestige with Santaluz, hands down. Here's a perfect example:

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-130025885-84...

THis 3600 sqft del sur home on just 6000 sqft lot is selling for $990k. The MR is $740/month, along with $167/month in HOA, resulting in $906/month in fees. Of course, there's no gate, no paid cable, etc.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-130024914-14...

MEanwhile, you have this santaluz home at 3800 sqft on 8500 sqft lot asking for a mil, but with total MR/HOA at slightly under $800/month.

What is more outrageous is some of del sur's homes even have 2 HOA fees.

THe lesson here is there's your typical MR, then there's del sur style MR. Outsiders that have never been to the area should take heed before making generalized statements.

Submitted by earlyretirement on June 19, 2013 - 11:45am.

ocrenter wrote:
ER, Del Sur will go down in history as one of the most outrageous developments in regard to MR abuse. Compared to Del Sur, one will find a much better value and prestige with Santaluz, hands down. Here's a perfect example:

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-130025885-84...

THis 3600 sqft del sur home on just 6000 sqft lot is selling for $990k. The MR is $740/month, along with $167/month in HOA, resulting in $906/month in fees. Of course, there's no gate, no paid cable, etc.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-130024914-14...

MEanwhile, you have this santaluz home at 3800 sqft on 8500 sqft lot asking for a mil, but with total MR/HOA at slightly under $800/month.

What is more outrageous is some of del sur's homes even have 2 HOA fees.

THe lesson here is there's your typical MR, then there's del sur style MR. Outsiders that have never been to the area should take heed before making generalized statements.

I totally agree with you OCR. We looked at some houses in Del Sur a few years ago but we just didn't like the community as much. For the very high Mello Roos and HOA you don't nearly what you get at other areas like Santaluz. I just couldn't understand it other than people seem to be stretching to buy as it is and mostly priced out of some areas and they would rather have more bedrooms.

I saw that house in Santaluz that you listed a few years ago. They have been trying to sell it for a while. You will notice while other houses all around it are selling fairly quickly after going on the market, it's just sitting there. Like look at this one:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/14422...

It went into escrow within 12 HOURS for what I heard is asking price. It's just around the corner from the one you listed.

Or this one that is a few blocks away.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/7575-...

It went into escrow for what I've been told is ABOVE their asking price in just 4 days after listing it.

The one you listed is very nice and they did some nice upgrades in it. The biggest problem is that ultimately it's only really 3 bedrooms. They say they converted the bedroom into an office but it's positioned as such that it wouldn't really be practical for a bedroom. Plus the "bedroom" that they made in their garage for their nanny is really poorly done, IMHO.

That's why everything else is selling fairly quickly but I'm not sure they will have such an easy time. But the house is very nice other than the lack of bedrooms for that price.

But no doubt I wouldn't be crazy in owning in Del Sur and paying those kinds of monthly fees. The look and feel of that community is much different for those kinds of fees vs. places like Santaluz, IMHO.

Submitted by ocrenter on June 19, 2013 - 5:40pm.

earlyretirement wrote:

I totally agree with you OCR. We looked at some houses in Del Sur a few years ago but we just didn't like the community as much. For the very high Mello Roos and HOA you don't nearly what you get at other areas like Santaluz. I just couldn't understand it other than people seem to be stretching to buy as it is and mostly priced out of some areas and they would rather have more bedrooms.

I saw that house in Santaluz that you listed a few years ago. They have been trying to sell it for a while. You will notice while other houses all around it are selling fairly quickly after going on the market, it's just sitting there. Like look at this one:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/14422...

It went into escrow within 12 HOURS for what I heard is asking price. It's just around the corner from the one you listed.

Or this one that is a few blocks away.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/7575-...

It went into escrow for what I've been told is ABOVE their asking price in just 4 days after listing it.

The one you listed is very nice and they did some nice upgrades in it. The biggest problem is that ultimately it's only really 3 bedrooms. They say they converted the bedroom into an office but it's positioned as such that it wouldn't really be practical for a bedroom. Plus the "bedroom" that they made in their garage for their nanny is really poorly done, IMHO.

That's why everything else is selling fairly quickly but I'm not sure they will have such an easy time. But the house is very nice other than the lack of bedrooms for that price.

But no doubt I wouldn't be crazy in owning in Del Sur and paying those kinds of monthly fees. The look and feel of that community is much different for those kinds of fees vs. places like Santaluz, IMHO.

Agree, with such low inventory, if it isn't the price, then something else is up with the property for it to sit in this market.

Del sur truly does have some very worrisome combo. The smaller condos/attached homes are priced at a price point that draw in dual income earners that likely have a tight budget, but they are then hit with high priced MR/HOA. I do agree with BG this is the perfect scenario for creation of the chronic paycheck to paycheck barely above water struggle that would lead to mass default if the economy experience another crash.

Submitted by earlyretirement on June 19, 2013 - 7:11pm.

ocrenter wrote:

Agree, with such low inventory, if it isn't the price, then something else is up with the property for it to sit in this market.

Del sur truly does have some very worrisome combo. The smaller condos/attached homes are priced at a price point that draw in dual income earners that likely have a tight budget, but they are then hit with high priced MR/HOA. I do agree with BG this is the perfect scenario for creation of the chronic paycheck to paycheck barely above water struggle that would lead to mass default if the economy experience another crash.

Exactly. With the extremely low inventory, owners need to figure out if all the other houses around them are selling very quickly and theirs isn't then something is wrong with that picture.

Yes, BG makes some good points about this 'perfect storm' scenario. In fact, I've seen it. There are some people that scape everything they have for the down payment and even after a year can't even furnish their home! I met such a guy there. It seems crazy to me you'd finally buy a house but blow every last cent on the down payment in this competitive environment and not even be able to furnish your house! But I met a guy in Del Sur that falls in that category.

I also had some friends that formally lived in San Diego in this SAME scenario where they either lost a job or their spouse lost a job and they simply couldn't afford their house/lifestyle even with it only being a few months!

Strange phenomenon here with people that buy $700,000 to $800,000+ houses here that are almost living paycheck to paycheck or that have major life events (medical issues, job loss, etc) and can't handle it. It's a bit scary to me to see that. But the job market here in San Diego is MUCH different vs. lots of city where someone can easily find another high paying job. That isn't the case here in SD with the "sunshine tax".

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 4, 2013 - 8:45am.

For anyone following this Mello Roos topic on KPBS you might find these links interesting.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/aug/19/pow...

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/aug/20/pow...

It sounds like Mello Roos funds are CLEARLY being misused. Some of these things are shocking and it sounds like illegal. 200 bank accounts? There doesn't sound like there is any oversight at all.

This is why I pre-paid off my Mello Roos taxes off early.

Submitted by CA renter on September 6, 2013 - 12:15am.

ER,

Thanks for following up on this, and for putting pressure on them to dig more deeply into the details of Mello-Roos.

IMO, there is no reason for Mello-Roos. It's simply a way to direct more money into the pockets of long-time land owners and developers.

The developers should have to spend their own money to build the infrastructure necessary for their developments, and the costs of this should be fully included in the price of the houses. If they can't make the numbers work, then they're paying too much for the land.

By keeping these costs separate from the cost of the homes, gullible buyers won't bother to look into the *total* price they're paying for the houses. As always, they're keeping people in the dark by focusing on payments instead of total cost.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 6, 2013 - 9:31am.

CA renter wrote:
ER,

Thanks for following up on this, and for putting pressure on them to dig more deeply into the details of Mello-Roos.

IMO, there is no reason for Mello-Roos. It's simply a way to direct more money into the pockets of long-time land owners and developers.

The developers should have to spend their own money to build the infrastructure necessary for their developments, and the costs of this should be fully included in the price of the houses. If they can't make the numbers work, then they're paying too much for the land.

By keeping these costs separate from the cost of the homes, gullible buyers won't bother to look into the *total* price they're paying for the houses. As always, they're keeping people in the dark by focusing on payments instead of total cost.

Wholeheartedly agree here, CAR. Prior to 1987, Developers in SD County DID use their own money to build the infrastructure needed for their residential developments. And those costs WERE factored into the price of a new-construction house or condo.

Part of the problem was that the concept of a "master-planned community" was successfully sold by Big Development to city and county officials of past decades who fell for it hook, like and sinker.

The MPC idea appealed to our elected officials because it took the pressure off them to find land for needed libraries, parks and fire stations (which wouldn't have been needed if they hadn't approved the subdivision permits in the first place). These developers "donated" the land for these public buildings (tiny pieces of large parcels, which they paid a mere song for back in 19xx) :=0

However, our short-sighted elected officials permitted all this stuff whilst having dollar signs in their eyes in anticipation of endless incoming property tax revenue. Of course, a good portion of their votes for what amounted to rampant urban sprawl occurred before the state decided to intercept it, confiscate some of it and return the balance back to the counties from whence it came, leaving CA cities and counties short of funds for needed services :=0

Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they're going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It's a comedy of errors which isn't going to end well, folks.

Hence my impending "retirement" to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 6, 2013 - 9:56am.

bearishgurl wrote:

Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they're going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It's a comedy of errors which isn't going to end well, folks.

Hence my impending "retirement" to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.

Is this really true? Are all MR jurisdictions scrambling? The PUSD is the only MR district that I've ever heard of that has actually raised MR assessments post initial sale. I suspect there are other problems in other parts of the state. But I've never heard of that happening right next door in Carmel Valley or anywhere else in the city of SD (outside of the PUSD). There are plenty of older MR districts in CV that have been paid off in due course. The infrastructures have been built and the homeowners paid for it as originally agreed. Maybe similar problems in Chula Vista as in the PUSD (I don't know)?

Is it possible that the problem is not the MR regulations allowing tax assessments/bond issuance to pay for infrastructure. The problem seems to be when these schemes are abused by municipalities and school districts. I think there's some evidence that MR can be used successfully.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 6, 2013 - 10:48am.

SK in CV wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they're going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It's a comedy of errors which isn't going to end well, folks.

Hence my impending "retirement" to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.

Is this really true? Are all MR jurisdictions scrambling? The PUSD is the only MR district that I've ever heard of that has actually raised MR assessments post initial sale. I suspect there are other problems in other parts of the state. But I've never heard of that happening right next door in Carmel Valley or anywhere else in the city of SD (outside of the PUSD). There are plenty of older MR districts in CV that have been paid off in due course. The infrastructures have been built and the homeowners paid for it as originally agreed. Maybe similar problems in Chula Vista as in the PUSD (I don't know)?

Is it possible that the problem is not the MR regulations allowing tax assessments/bond issuance to pay for infrastructure. The problem seems to be when these schemes are abused by municipalities and school districts. I think there's some evidence that MR can be used successfully.

SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.

As you know, smaller CA inland cities have been heavily affected adversely by the "boom-bust" culture that urban sprawl causes, so much so that they felt it necessary to file for BK protection. These cities were all primarily overdeveloped in the last decade+.

Using SUHSD, GUSD and SUSHD for examples, the MR bonds collected in those districts appear to be used ONLY for infrastructure within the CFD's. As you can see from the photos below, the PUSD's multimillion dollar HQ is far more lavish than the HQ's in these other local school school districts. In the SUHSD, older schools go wanting for pavement repairs, lockers, water fountains and the list goes on (in spite of Prop "O"). In my own kid's school, the lockers have been rendered unusable so have been permanently caged, while the District's *newer* schools have carpeted auditoriums and indoor pools, for starters.

As it should be. Those residents are paying through the nose for these perks for their kids.

bearishgurl on August 7, 2012 - 1:45 pm wrote:
I'm troubled by the PUSD's all-brick facade multi-level HQ with its (very expensive) dbl-paned "Low E" windows.

PUSD HQ

Why did they think they needed to build this "monument" and not tax its property owners to pay for it? I thought there was a "captive audience" of current and aspiring homeowners in the PUSD. Why wouldn't they approve a new construction bond to build this monstrosity and upgrade its older schools ... even if the bonds from 2000 were not yet paid off?

The SDUSD HQ with its 40-60 year-old trailers and add-ons was originally constructed in the '30's!

The GUSD HQ was actually built in the '20's, yet their taxpayers are currently funding Prop U (which they're doing great things with, btw)!

GUSD HQ

http://piggington.com/powaythe_real_debt...

Here's a question for the PUSD Board: "If you purport to currently have a ~$168M "surplus" in MR bond revenue, then, pray tell, why aren't you using most of it to pay down the ill-fated Prop C monies you borrowed at subprime interest rates??"

THIS ^^ is the time bomb that is going to cause the county assessor to eventually raise EVERY property owner taxes who owns within the PUSD.

“This is a perfect example of how something that’s done today can adversely affect the next generation and the generation after that.”

—Dan McAllister, San Diego County treasurer and tax collector.

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2012/08/06/wh...

I did just listen to the sound bytes that ER provided and also visited the Adobe Bluffs Elem website. The truth is, if Willow Grove is truly FULL of students who reside WITHIN its attendance area (and has accepted no transfer students) then those SantaLuz residents who are complaining really don't have a case. Adobe Bluffs, although much further away, DOES have a 917 API score and VERY LIKELY was ALSO built with MR bond money (circa 1992). The only difference is that AB Elem may not have as "homogenous" of a student population as does Willow Grove (read: AB may have some low-income students). This won't affect the quality of education of any student but I agree that it is much more inconvenient for SantaLuz parents and therefore transportation to/from AB Elem should be provided by the District.

In any case, Superintendent Collins stated that at least one temporary building would be erected on Willow Grove's campus by Spring 2014. It is only kindergarteners who are currently affected, no? When more room is made on the WG campus, then those resident-students can come back to their neighborhood school. It's not the end of the world.

Contrary to the testimony of SantaLuz parents at the PUSD Board mtg, MR payments aren't made to any one school or group of cluster schools. They are paid into a school district but I agree that they should not have been used to fund infrastructure in older schools or build a new HQ, as is apparently what happened in the PUSD.

There is NO GUARANTEE ANYWHERE in CA that your kid will be admitted to his/her neighborhood school. This decision is entirely up to your school district. If no room is available in your kid's neighborhood school, the District should provide him/her transportation.

Submitted by all on September 6, 2013 - 10:58am.

bearishgurl wrote:

SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.


And no true Scotsman...

Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?

bearishgurl wrote:

Here's a question for the PUSD Board: "If you purport to currently have a ~$168M "surplus" in MR bond revenue, then, pray tell, why aren't you using most of it to pay down the ill-fated Prop C monies you borrowed at subprime interest rates??"

MR is to be used to build and maintain the infrastructure in the covered area. Prop C money is for the schools outside the MR areas.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 6, 2013 - 11:19am.

all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.
And no true Scotsman...

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

all wrote:
Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?

Yes.

all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
Here's a question for the PUSD Board: "If you purport to currently have a ~$168M "surplus" in MR bond revenue, then, pray tell, why aren't you using most of it to pay down the ill-fated Prop C monies you borrowed at subprime interest rates??"
MR is to be used to build and maintain the infrastructure in the covered area. Prop C money is for the schools outside the MR areas.

captcha, my understanding is the Prop C bonds are paid by ALL property owners within the PUSD. If you own there, take a look at your last tax bill.

Submitted by all on September 6, 2013 - 12:58pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.
And no true Scotsman...

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

all wrote:
Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?

Yes.

Carmel Mountain Ranch was built in very early nineties, it is in PUSD and there is MR. Santaluz is halfway between CMR and CV, about three miles from either. Another 3 miles from a business park that hosts Sony, Nokia, Broadcom, HP... Santaluz is an outlying area only if you are observing the world from a Tijuana suburb.

bearishgurl wrote:

captcha, my understanding is the Prop C bonds are paid by ALL property owners within the PUSD. If you own there, take a look at your last tax bill.

You are misunderstanding again.

Submitted by waitingtobuy on September 6, 2013 - 9:13pm.

This is very disturbing.
This misuse of funds is a clear criminal act.
Are parents/community leaders doing anything abt it?
Any possibility of a lawsuit against PUSD?
This scam must be stopped.
I don't want to see anyone eating $2k lunch and relishing ice cream sundae with my hard earned money.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 7, 2013 - 10:19am.

CA renter wrote:
ER,

Thanks for following up on this, and for putting pressure on them to dig more deeply into the details of Mello-Roos.

IMO, there is no reason for Mello-Roos. It's simply a way to direct more money into the pockets of long-time land owners and developers.

The developers should have to spend their own money to build the infrastructure necessary for their developments, and the costs of this should be fully included in the price of the houses. If they can't make the numbers work, then they're paying too much for the land.

By keeping these costs separate from the cost of the homes, gullible buyers won't bother to look into the *total* price they're paying for the houses. As always, they're keeping people in the dark by focusing on payments instead of total cost.

You're welcome CAR. I do think many of the various local and maybe even national press needs to investigate this in greater detail. The shame of it is that parents (taxpayers) don't really seem to care too much about this. It's mind boggling to me.

I actually don't always think Mello Roos taxes are a bad idea. It just depends on the actual development. I think in many cases they are necessary if a project/development is going to be done properly.

However, if you have them, there MUST be clear oversight and rules governing the funds and their disbursement, etc. In the case of PUSD, there doesn't seem to be any oversight at all on what they are spending the funds on.

This is all VERY disturbing to say the least.

waitingtobuy wrote:
This is very disturbing.
This misuse of funds is a clear criminal act.
Are parents/community leaders doing anything abt it?
Any possibility of a lawsuit against PUSD?
This scam must be stopped.
I don't want to see anyone eating $2k lunch and relishing ice cream sundae with my hard earned money.

I totally agree. Disturbing is putting it mildly. I do think it will take a lawsuit to really uncover just how much misuse of funds is going on and what it's being used on (and has been used on over the years). An explanation of who exactly can draw on these 200 checking accounts and what the process is?

It doesn't seem like anyone wants to "rock the boat" but I'm afraid it's going to take a formal lawsuit. Any lawyers on the board interested?

Submitted by ocrenter on September 7, 2013 - 1:24pm.

earlyretirement wrote:

I totally agree. Disturbing is putting it mildly. I do think it will take a lawsuit to really uncover just how much misuse of funds is going on and what it's being used on (and has been used on over the years). An explanation of who exactly can draw on these 200 checking accounts and what the process is?

It doesn't seem like anyone wants to "rock the boat" but I'm afraid it's going to take a formal lawsuit. Any lawyers on the board interested?

This is unfortunately the unfortunate truth when it comes to the MR.

There have been gross abuse of power with complete lack oversight.

Hate to say it, but a class action lawsuit is way overdue.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 7, 2013 - 5:06pm.

all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.
And no true Scotsman...

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

all wrote:
Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?

Yes.

Carmel Mountain Ranch was built in very early nineties, it is in PUSD and there is MR. Santaluz is halfway between CMR and CV, about three miles from either. Another 3 miles from a business park that hosts Sony, Nokia, Broadcom, HP... Santaluz is an outlying area only if you are observing the world from a Tijuana suburb.

I would tend to agree. Carmel Valley is no more of an outlying (or at least as much of an outlying area) as Santa Luz. Escondido is more outlying, and if there have been MR abuses there, I haven't heard much of them. Same with some of the other truly outlying areas that had major development over the last 15 years...San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside. Maybe there have been problems, but if so, they haven't been near as public as the problems in the PUSD.

And I'm pretty sure there are some MR that are fully paid off in Carmel Valley.

The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven't out of office.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 8, 2013 - 7:44am.

SK in CV wrote:
all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.
And no true Scotsman...

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

all wrote:
Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?

Yes.

Carmel Mountain Ranch was built in very early nineties, it is in PUSD and there is MR. Santaluz is halfway between CMR and CV, about three miles from either. Another 3 miles from a business park that hosts Sony, Nokia, Broadcom, HP... Santaluz is an outlying area only if you are observing the world from a Tijuana suburb.

I would tend to agree. Carmel Valley is no more of an outlying (or at least as much of an outlying area) as Santa Luz. Escondido is more outlying, and if there have been MR abuses there, I haven't heard much of them. Same with some of the other truly outlying areas that had major development over the last 15 years...San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside. Maybe there have been problems, but if so, they haven't been near as public as the problems in the PUSD.

And I'm pretty sure there are some MR that are fully paid off in Carmel Valley.

The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven't out of office.

I totally agree. I don't consider Carmel Valley and Santaluz as "outlying areas". Not at all. I mean they both still have San Diego addresses! LOL.

As well, EXCELLENT comment about it not being the design of the Mello Roos laws but the abuse of the process and oversight of the spending.

As I mentioned, there are many times when Mello Roos taxes are needed and developments would probably never get off the ground without them. They can and do make sense. However, what seems to happen with this type of thing is that implementation often times gets corrupt and random people start getting access to the funds and they use it as their personal piggy bank.

What we need is a full accounting of the past Mello Roos tax intake and a full accounting of where the funds have gone over the years, a complete breakdown of district by district which schools or what things this money has been spent on.

And again, I'm still waiting for an explanation why they need 200 checking accounts for these funds. And also who can access these funds.

I agree we need to get ANYONE out of office via recall or other legal means that might be breaking the laws and using these funds for purposes they weren't intended for. And make sure we send a strong message to any possible incoming officers that we as taxpayers won't put up for this kind of fraud and abuse of power.

The biggest problem I see is that this sort of thing seems to be generally accepted over time. Incoming administrations might see past administrations using funds for unintended/illegal purposes and then they think it's ok for them to as well. And the fraud and abuse just becomes sort of institutionalized.

WE as taxpayers need to stop this and totally nip it in the bud. And once it's stopped, make sure there is clear and proper and regular oversight of the spending.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 8, 2013 - 12:17pm.

The "close in" areas were originally built as exits off the interstates, such as Carmel Valley 92130 (fka "North City West" at I-5 jct I-805). The more "outlying" areas were not situated near interstates and remained very small until the MR act enabled them to mushroom into what they are today. Examples are San Marcos (92069) and Fallbrook (92028 - to a much lesser extent).

The Covenants lying within SD County (92067) have been there for several decades. They are not situated "right on" the interstates but nonetheless are very well-established and do not lie within CFD's.

The community of SantaLuz (92127) and the communities lying within the Covenants (92069) are completely different animals.

All of 92127 is a "later-annexed" zip code (part city/part county, where it absorbed a small portion which was formerly in 92128, I believe). The 92127 annexation took place just 12-13 years ago and 95% of it lies within CFDs. Due to its distance from 92101, it is all considered "second-tier" suburbs or "outlying" but not far enough as to be an "exurb" to SD (ex: Temecula in RIV Co, Campo or Pine Valley).

In SD County, the base zip code from where local first and second-tier suburbs and exurbs radiate from is 92101. It has no bearing on where job centers may be located today. 92101 is where the City and County HQs and Main County Superior Courts are located. This is the "original" San Diego and it is what it is and will never change.

SK, of course you are aware that Esco is a medium-sized city in its own right (like Chula Vista) and is a second-tier suburb to SD due to distance from 92101. Like Esco, Chula Vista (91910/91911) is very well-established but is a first-tier suburb (due to having an 8-13 mi distance to 92101). Esco has 3 well-established zip codes (92025, 92026 and 92027) and I am not aware of any CFDs lying within Esco's city limits (do any Piggs know?). CFD's inhabit all five of Chula Vista's zip codes BUT the bonds which financed 91910's biggest CFD are now retired (RDR II) and only about 15% of 91911 is inhabited by CFDs (Sunbow). 85% of 91913 is inhabited by CFDs, 90% of 91914 is inhabited by CFDs and 100% of 91915 is inhabited by CFDs. Due to distance from 92101, 91913, 91914 and 91915 (later annexations to Chula Vista) are considered "second-tier" suburbs.

About 1/3 of 92154 lies within CFD's, all east of I-805. This zip code was annexed to SD roughly 30-35 years ago. Due to distance from 92101, the communities within it (incl Nestor, Otay Mesa and Ocean View Hills) are considered "second-tier" suburbs to SD. There are several more SD City zip codes which, although annexed to SD at some point in time, are still considered "second-tier suburbs" due to distance from 92101.

Signed,

Well-versed in local City/County urban-planning practices

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 8, 2013 - 1:16pm.

SK in CV wrote:
all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
all wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.
And no true Scotsman...

What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??

all wrote:
Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?

Yes.

Carmel Mountain Ranch was built in very early nineties, it is in PUSD and there is MR. Santaluz is halfway between CMR and CV, about three miles from either. Another 3 miles from a business park that hosts Sony, Nokia, Broadcom, HP... Santaluz is an outlying area only if you are observing the world from a Tijuana suburb.

I would tend to agree. Carmel Valley is no more of an outlying (or at least as much of an outlying area) as Santa Luz. Escondido is more outlying, and if there have been MR abuses there, I haven't heard much of them. Same with some of the other truly outlying areas that had major development over the last 15 years...San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside. Maybe there have been problems, but if so, they haven't been near as public as the problems in the PUSD.

And I'm pretty sure there are some MR that are fully paid off in Carmel Valley.

The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven't out of office.

SK, I never stated that MR (bond-money) abuses are rampant throughout the state. In fact, in my post above with the link to an earlier (Aug 2012) thread on this subject, I stated that other county suburban school districts had appeared to be using their MR bond money appropriately. What I did state was that the MR Act created an environment for Big Development to convince local jurisdictions to approve massive "master-planned communities" which has had the recent effect of creating boom/bust cycles in areas which never witnessed this phenomenon before (ex: Stockton, Los Banos, Napa, Tracy, etc). These "boom-bust" cycles caused these (formerly rural/agricultural) cities and counties to "ramp up" their personnel to increase services for a huge new population increase which turned out to be temporary, causing them to later lay off due to severely falling values (which were never supported by local fundamentals). These developer-driven cycles also occurred in exurbs located in Eastern Alameda County and the City of San Bernardino (an exurb of Los Angeles). The fallout of these "boom-bust" cycles was and is devastating to county and municipal coffers. However, I believe those subd's in Eastern Alameda County and Napa County are well on their way to recovery now. The same cannot be said for the City of SB, Stockton and Los Banos, for example, because higher-paying white-collar jobs within ~25 miles of these cities (adequate for a monthly mortgage payment) are not in abundance.

I am totally with CAR in that developers should have had to finance ALL the infrastructure on their land as a condition of subdividing for residential development and then roll this cost into the price of each parcel when purchased as new construction.

In the absence of the MR Act, if each new parcel over the last ~30 years (with new construction on it) had been priced appropriately from the get go, CA wouldn't have all this unwanted and unneeded urban and exurban sprawl because each fully-developed parcel would have been too expensive for the masses of past and present buyers who were drawn to subd's within the CFDs (in comparison to a home in an established area).

But we can't turn back the clock. The unintended consequences of the MR Act are now knocking most of CA's elected and appointed officials upside the head because the MR bond money emanating from these CFD's was never intended to to be used pay the extra city/county workers salaries to service these residents. The available county and municipal services will be permanently curtailed going forward for EVERY CA resident. And for many overdeveloped jurisdictions throughout the state, the gravity of this problem is such that their residents' needs are so great that they must permanently "borrow" agencies and their personnel from neighboring cities/counties which either did not have the land available for or were wise enough to NOT fall for Big Development's ruse.

In conjunction with the later (1986) enactment of Props 58/193 (the progeny of Prop 13), the after-effects of the MR Act have been no less than fiscally devastating to the (former) "Golden State." As I have posted before here, Henry Mello could not have possibly envisioned this sad scenario when he and Mike Roos introduced the bill to the Legislature and has to be turning in his grave by now :=0.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 8, 2013 - 1:27pm.

SK in CV wrote:
. . . The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven't out of office.

Good advice, SK. I've been saying the same thing on this forum for years. There seem to be a LOT of disenchanted people (primarily with how all levels of gubment are run) who appear to be completely ignorant of the process and/or don't want to take time to get involved.

The letters Pigg ER is writing and the (press and elected official?) contacts he has made appear to have been a positive start. Even though fairly new to SD county, he seems to be quite eloquent in his posts and so is likely the same in person :)

I was very active in local politics for years but I've long ago run out of energy for this sort of thing :=0

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 8, 2013 - 5:17pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
. . . The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven't out of office.

Good advice, SK. I've been saying the same thing on this forum for years. There seem to be a LOT of disenchanted people (primarily with how all levels of gubment are run) who appear to be completely ignorant of the process and/or don't want to take time to get involved.

The letters Pigg ER is writing and the (press and elected official?) contacts he has made appear to have been a positive start. Even though fairly new to SD county, he seems to be quite eloquent in his posts and so is likely the same in person :)

I was very active in local politics for years but I've long ago run out of energy for this sort of thing :=0

BG,

Yes, that is me posting on the various blogs and comments section of KPBS and other websites. Thanks for the kind words. I've written letters and emails to various officials as well as asking some media to investigate the matter further. It's good to see some taking an interest in the matter but I really think it will take more of a national spotlight to shine on this potential fraud and abuse of our tax dollars.

Just like the PUSD made national headlines for the Capital Appreciation Bond shenanigans, I firmly believe that we need a national spotlight to shine on these various districts about the use of CFD funds and also the oversight of such funds.

You know, San Diego is one of those wonderful cities from many aspects but it's just a shame we get such poor publicly elected officials here. A big part of it is I think that locals just don't care too much about these issues. As well, many people are coming and going all the time through San Diego and these people don't seem to care either.

Also, there is such a mentality and acceptance for fraud and abuse that elected officials just believe they can get away with continuing down the same path. It's both our OBLIGATION and responsibility to make them fully accountable.

Those officials that can't follow the laws and do what's proper, ethical and correct need to get their asses booted out of office and future officials need to see that WE taxpayers won't stand for this nonsense.

We really need a "back to basics" sense of common sense oversight of our tax dollars and getting a better accounting of how they are used. In this day and age and power of the Internet, we really have the power to hold publicly elected officials to task for misusing our tax dollars.

It's going to take more people getting outraged, more people wanting to take an active interest in not getting screwed (and their kids and their kid's kids from getting screwed) and more cooperation from the media and press to shine a light on this fraud and abuse and misuse of OUR tax dollars.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.