Report-Regional-Housing-Study

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Escoguy on August 3, 2016 - 2:11pm

http://www.sdchamber.org/wp-content/uplo...

 If we anticipated single-family demand by using the existing housing stock as our best
measure of historical preferences (63% single-family), an estimated 214,515 single-family
homes would be demanded. However, the aggregation reveals that local planning efforts
only accommodate 65,756 single-family homes, a ratio of 3 out of 10. Based on these
assumptions, only 30% of all future residents who wish to purchase a new, single-family
home will be able to do so. The other 70% would be accommodated in multifamily units.

see page 29
There has indeed been a shift in the composition of housing growth. The most recent 2015 permit
distribution for single-family was 66.3% below the 2003 peak. This has put significant pressure
on single-family home prices because the market is now delivering approximately 2,600 singlefamily
homes per year compared to 7,800 per year during the last real estate cycle.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 3, 2016 - 2:28pm.

What you have to understand is the largest generation in history is just now coming into the household formation age and we are building like there was a declining population bust for the last 25 years..

Submitted by sdsurfer on August 3, 2016 - 2:49pm.

Thanks for posting! I'll have to read through the whole thing, but skimmed through a bit and there is a ton of data in there relating to demand. It's interesting what they say about all the job creation in North County without new homes for those people to live in which might lead to longer commutes for some or they'll have to live in multifamily, but then there seems to be a bit of doubt as to if the multifamily units will actually get built too.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 3, 2016 - 4:57pm.

I quickly read thru pages 1-6 of the report and I really don't see the same problems coming to fruition that the report talks about. "Newcomers" (or any prospective buyer/renter, for that matter) aren't "entitled" to live in new construction. Especially in CA coastal counties. It warns that SD companies will pack up and leave if their prospective employees can't find "affordable" housing. Well, the truth is that SD's "sunshine tax" will no longer prevail and SD companies will finally be forced to pay their employees a living wage if they want to retain them for any length of time (or retain them at all). It's about time.

"Affordable" neighborhoods will always be present in SD County, yes even within 20 miles of job centers. Yes, most of these areas have available housing which is 50 to 90 years old and people accepting jobs here will be forced to accept older housing in these "affordable" established areas if they want to move here and those areas are all they can afford. That's the way its been in SF, SM and SC Counties (on the SF peninsula) for over 15 years now.

The report goes on to say that "boomers" are "hoarding" houses in SD County. Well boomers, seniors AS WELL AS their younger "heirs" all over the state have every right to "hoard" as many houses as their families own. I personally know boomers and seniors who own between 4 and 44 (yeah, I said 44) SFR's in San Diego County, the vast majority of them rentals. Perhaps most of these (older) houses might not suit the "sensibilities" of entitled millenials and beyond who are attempting a job transfer here from their mcmansion situated on a man-made lake on a prairie in the middle of TX but that's just too bad. Again, San Diegans don't owe newcomers a damn thing. Just like the available housing in tiny Milbrae and Burlingame (SM County), SD's available housing inventory is what it is. I don't understand why the report is accusing longtime SD residents of "aging in place" as if that is somehow a crime. The current crop of first-time buyers don't want these boomers' and seniors' houses. They don't even want to rent them! What exactly is the problem, here?

As long as Props 13, 58 and 193 remain on CA's books as the law of the land, ALL GENERATIONS will continue to "hoard" houses in CA (ESP along the pricey coast) into perpetuity. And why wouldn't they? A repeal of these laws are the only events that will change the behavior of longtime CA homeowners in this regard.

The report is a lot of fluff and bluster and nothing will ever be done to house these hundreds of thousands of "newcomers" which are "expected" to move here. The (over)building party is over so now prospective buyers/renters have to actually face reality if they wish to move here and remain here. It's as it should be.

If "newcomers" can't find housing in SD County that they can afford AND are willing to accept, they won't move here. It's that simple (active-duty military personnel excepted). Why is it so hard for so many to envision SD County NOT growing, or growing only a tiny bit (<1%)? What is so wrong with that?

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 3, 2016 - 5:44pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
What you have to understand is the largest generation in history is just now coming into the household formation age and we are building like there was a declining population bust for the last 25 years..
READ MY LIPS, shoveler. There is NO MORE LAND left in SD County for subdivisions! Deal with it.

It has nothing to do with the size of the "upcoming generation" (or anything else, for that matter).

It is not in SD County's best interest to keep building like there is no tomorrow ... even with infill ... (assuming permits could be acquired). We don't have the water, infrastructure or adequate city and county staffs to serve the population we currently have. Due to gross overbuilding, longtime San Diegans' quality of life has gone down the tubes since the mid-eighties, IMO.

If there is no room here for incoming millenials to accept jobs, they will take a job in another city. Although, I suspect there will always be room for them but the available housing won't always be to their liking. That's just too damn bad.

And it is really okay if SD County doesn't grow (appreciably) going forward.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 3, 2016 - 5:26pm.

sdsurfer wrote:
Thanks for posting! I'll have to read through the whole thing, but skimmed through a bit and there is a ton of data in there relating to demand. It's interesting what they say about all the job creation in North County without new homes for those people to live in which might lead to longer commutes for some or they'll have to live in multifamily, but then there seems to be a bit of doubt as to if the multifamily units will actually get built too.
In cities, any permitted multifamily projects will likely be properly zoned infill (meaning a bldg will have to be demolished to build the project on the same lot).

If an area is already zoned residential for SFRs, I don't see multifamily projects getting built in that area/subdivision, unless it was permitted long ago and the land was reserved for this use.

No single family homeowner in CA (especially one whose residence is in a coastal county) is going to vote to approve a multifamily project in their immediate neighborhood/subdivision. Nor should they. That's not what they signed up for when they bought their SFR in an area zoned SFR only. They will all revolt and waste the developer's and bureaucrats' time in hearing after hearing and the developer will walk away hundreds of thousands of dollars poorer with his/her tail between their legs. That's the way the laws are set up in this regard. It's never going to change .... nor should it.

We're all wasting our time here lamenting over the end of the "Build 'em and they will come era," and we need to seriously just get over it. Big Development's glory days are now over in SD County, folks. Life will go on even if its population drastically shrinks. And this will only happen if there are ever mass deportations of "unauthorized immigrants."

Submitted by Myriad on August 3, 2016 - 9:14pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
READ MY LIPS, shoveler. There is NO MORE LAND left in SD County for subdivisions! Deal with it.

Except for the thousands of homesites that are being prepped along the 56 and Carmel Valley Road in NC.
Mira Mesa also seems to be ok with building dense multi-family housing.

Submitted by covidwithlime on August 3, 2016 - 9:45pm.

Myriad wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
READ MY LIPS, shoveler. There is NO MORE LAND left in SD County for subdivisions! Deal with it.

Except for the thousands of homesites that are being prepped along the 56 and Carmel Valley Road in NC.
Mira Mesa also seems to be ok with building dense multi-family housing.
Except those are in the plans for decades already. There's no new land to create another Mira Mesa, Carmel Valley, etc. There are infill projects like Stone Bridge in Mira Mesa and Civita in Mission Valley, but they're dense multi-use projects. I don't see another Del Sur or 4S Ranch popping up anytime soon.

Submitted by scottinob on August 3, 2016 - 9:48pm.

You are being very very selfish and just downright mean bearishgurl. Your theory that "If you don't build it, they won't come" is simplistic and wrong. (Look at San Francisco, they stopped building and people didn't stop coming.)

I am a millennial that was born and raised in San Diego, and most of my family lives here. I would like to be able to stay here, close to my extended family. Housing costs have been increasing at alarming rate. This year my rent was jacked up $250/mo. My wife and I will have to make some hard choices if more housing supply isn't added to the region, if you had your way I would be forced to move away from my family.

Please also think about the others around you in this city who are also just trying to get by. You're weren't the first one in San Diego, you're not the only one, and despite your strongest desires: you won't be the last one.

Submitted by covidwithlime on August 3, 2016 - 10:00pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
And it is really okay if SD County doesn't grow (appreciably) going forward.
Why do you care? You'll be leaving soon anyways. Thank goodness the people at city hall disagree with you and hopefully we'll have a lot more development going forward.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 3, 2016 - 10:51pm.

Bearishgurl, my quality of life has been going up on San Diego since the 80s when I was in my teens. For one thing, the food choices keep on getting better. We used to be such a third rate city in terms of restaurants. We are now second rate, but new immigrants have brought much more diversity.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 3, 2016 - 11:04pm.

scottinob wrote:
You are being very very selfish and just downright mean bearishgurl. Your theory that "If you don't build it, they won't come" is simplistic and wrong. (Look at San Francisco, they stopped building and people didn't stop coming.)

I am a millennial that was born and raised in San Diego, and most of my family lives here. I would like to be able to stay here, close to my extended family. Housing costs have been increasing at alarming rate. This year my rent was jacked up $250/mo. My wife and I will have to make some hard choices if more housing supply isn't added to the region, if you had your way I would be forced to move away from my family.

Please also think about the others around you in this city who are also just trying to get by. You're weren't the first one in San Diego, you're not the only one, and despite your strongest desires: you won't be the last one.

Scott, are you currently living in the immediate vicinity of your extended family now? Do you think you could purchase a home in the immediate vicinity of your extended family in the coming years? What about with family help? If you want to settle near them and you presently don't live around there, why not? Millenials around me that grew up around here get help from relatives to buy a home nearby. One millenial/Gen X just "inherited" a home from her grandmother.

If builders in SD County were still out building subdivisions en masse in lizardland (assuming SD County had any buildable lizardland left), how is that going to better help you rent or buy in the immediate vicinity of your extended family?

You say your rent has gone up $250 month recently. You must be living in an area of the county where the rental market will bear such an increase. Rents don't go up that much around here.

Real estate is all local ... as in "micro area." If you really want to live near your extended family and it is doable for someone your age (a reasonably priced area), then you should. If your extended family lives in an upscale, "luxury," coastal (OB??) and/or $1M+ area, then you can't ... and the fact that SD County does or doesn't have any new construction SFR tracts out in lizardland for millenial buyers to choose from isn't going to fix this particular problem for you. Your parents and other relatives who may be living in areas of the city/county you can't currently afford to live in very likely didn't buy their 1st, 2nd or even 3rd house anywhere near there. They had to start somewhere and it simply isn't your turn yet to live there on your own. The vast majority of young people have never been able to buy a house/area comparable to their parents straight out (or a few years out) of college. They have to rent/buy where they can afford as I'm sure you are well aware.

As a SD Native, you are not a "newcomer" to SD and thus don't fall into the category of people I was discussing here (who have no desire to drop down several notches in the type of house/area they will accept in SD due to having owned move-up and luxury homes in much cheaper markets in the US). For this newcomer group (mostly from "flyover country"), they are probably better off not taking employment here and moving here, especially if they still have minor children to raise.

To avoid as many future rent hikes as possible, scott, I'm going to suggest that you should consider saving up a downpayment to buy a SD County home you can afford ASAP .... the closer to your peeps, the better. And again, whether the county grows (or not) in the future will have no bearing whatsoever on the price or availability of homes in the (already established) immediate area (or adjacent area) of your extended family that you will shop in. And Props 13, 58 and 193 most certainly will.

Submitted by flyer on August 3, 2016 - 11:28pm.

From what my developer friends tell me, the lack of buildable land here will be
self-limiting as far as development goes, so regardless of whether you're for or against it won't, imo, really matter.

Over the many decades our family has been investing in real estate in San Diego, we have never seen a time when fewer and fewer people can afford housing here, and the stats show it may only get worse as time goes on. Definitely a challenging situation for many.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 3, 2016 - 11:59pm.

AN wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
And it is really okay if SD County doesn't grow (appreciably) going forward.
Why do you care? You'll be leaving soon anyways. Thank goodness the people at city hall disagree with you and hopefully we'll have a lot more development going forward.
AN, I may or may not relocate. I haven't made up my mind.

(SD) "City Hall" does not call the shots where developers can build. They've approved upcoming multifamily/mixed use projects on dry river-bottom land fka "Vulcan (rubber) Materials" in MM and on a sloping area just above the SD River which long housed underground gas tanks and gas lines through MV. Those areas were never zoned residential to begin with, so developers of those (infill) projects didn't need to inform all homeowners whose parcel is located up to 300 feet from the proposed project for their "input" because there were no such residential parcels.

Those swaths of land have to be THE most undesirable land in the city! I would strongly advise anyone against buying a residence in either one of those (likely poorly-mitigated, if at all) environmental catastrophes in the making. We all know why City approved these doomed projects. They're desperate for new property tax revenue ... even in the short term (until such time as the HOAs of these projects sue the developers who summarily skipped town and nearly all the homeowners bail and eventually end up in foreclosure). SD has the bulk of the the most valuable residential parcels in the county within city limits but it is collecting very little property tax on most of it. Why? Because as the OP's linked report by the county's high-priced consultants state, these parcels (many of them "prized") have been "hoarded" by boomers and senior citizens, then deeded to their children and grandchildren before or after their deaths. This practice has been going on for decades and will continue to go on into perpetuity and City of SD is suffering mightily for it.

County didn't need to hire any "high-priced consultants" to tell them what I have repeated dozens of times here on this forum for "free." And their "consultants" didn't even explain why! That is that Props 13, 58 and 193 are the culprits. THEY are the reason for the dearth of inventory (more pronounced every year) causing sticky prices in established areas. If CA boomers and seniors had more perceived "mobility" (their residence was reassessed to market or adjusted to a new "mill levy formula" biennially, as it is in many other states), many of them would downsize and move to another (cheaper) county or state to have lower property taxes in retirement. But as it stands, longtime CA homeowners are not going to give up their ultra-low assessments, ever! "Ever" includes for their heirs ... and their heirs ... and so on. And why should they? Our shortsighted Legislature put the fix in for CA's longtime homeowners through an ill thought-out statutory scheme in the mid-eighties which effectively allowed members of the same family to enjoy their ancestor's ultra low assessments into perpetuity ... regardless of age, ability to pay tax, ability to work, disability status, etc, etc. In doing so, it permanently screwed over the state budget and those of its cities and counties .... royally.

In sum, CA boomers and seniors were "trained" and "encouraged" to "hoard homes." They came by that habit honestly and so we can't blame them for doing it. That's what our esteemed state gubment wants them to do.

Submitted by covidwithlime on August 4, 2016 - 1:00am.

bearishgurl wrote:
Those areas were never zoned residential to begin with, so developers of those (infill) projects didn't need to inform all homeowners whose parcel is located up to 300 feet from the proposed project for their "input" because there were no such residential parcels.
Factually incorrect. Stone Creek was in the community plan decades ago. Here's the plan from 1994. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/f... So yeah, stick with the facts if you can.
bearishgurl wrote:

In sum, CA boomers and seniors were "trained" and "encouraged" to "hoard homes." They came by that habit honestly and so we can't blame them for doing it. That's what our esteemed state gubment wants them to do.
Doesn't matter. I want SD to grow not stay stagnant. Which mean I want A LOT more development. So, it's perfectly fine old timer can stay in their home with their low tax bases. I want SD population to continue grow, which mean we need to continue to build new homes. City council agree with me.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 4, 2016 - 5:34am.

flyer wrote:
From what my developer friends tell me, the lack of buildable land here will be
self-limiting as far as development goes, so regardless of whether you're for or against it won't, imo, really matter.

Along the immediate coast that may be true, but inland there is an enormous amount of buildable land left in SD county especially the further north you go.

Not everyone needs to live in the first 5 miles of the coast.

If there is a lack of land it is because of zoning.

North County will see the bulk of the new development and biz in the next few decades IMO.

Submitted by flyer on August 4, 2016 - 6:13am.

Interesting article:

By Lisa Halverstadt | January 9, 2015

True Statement: “San Diego today is the largest city in the United States that has run out of raw land. Except in the largely industrial Otay Mesa area, it is simply not possible for San Diego to continue growing in this traditional way,” former San Diego planning director Bill Fulton wrote in a Jan. 3 U-T San Diego op-ed.

Determination: True

Analysis: San Diego is in the midst of a major push-pull over the future of development.

Planners and transit advocates argue the city needs to embrace more urban development and density, and some residents resist, concerned that development could tarnish their neighborhoods.

Planning guru Bill Fulton, who was at the front lines of that debate as the city’s planning director, claimed in a recent U-T San Diego op-ed that the suburban build-out San Diego’s long embraced just won’t work anymore. There simply isn’t space for it – and that means a new development reality.

“San Diego today is the largest city in the United States that has run out of raw land,” wrote Fulton, who now leads Rice University’s Kinder Institute for Urban Research. “Except in the largely industrial Otay Mesa area, it is simply not possible for San Diego to continue growing in this traditional way.”

He’s mostly on point.

A 2009 analysis by the San Diego Association of Governments, the region’s planning agency, found just 5,280 acres of vacant land in San Diego, a city that spans about 342 square miles. This means only about 2 percent of city land is vacant.

Local real estate experts say much of that open acreage isn’t development-ready or ideal for building.

In some cases, the open plots are smaller than most developers prefer or are within protected areas where building isn’t allowed. Or they have terrain that makes construction nearly impossible.

This means increased density is a necessity “unless we are willing to go back in and fill the canyons and reclaim some of the lands we set aside for habitat,” said Russ Valone, a local real estate analyst who assisted with the 2009 SANDAG review.

That’s because the regional planning agency estimates the population of the city alone will grow by more 590,000 residents by 2050, largely due to local births.

Those new residents will need to live somewhere, and there’s not much space left for large master-planned communities, particularly in the center of the city. Planners envision more San Diegans living in multi-family buildings and closer to transit stations.

There is some green space left in Otay Mesa, though much of that’ll be for businesses. There’s also still some acreage available in northern parts of the city such as Carmel Valley, Black Mountain Ranch and Torrey Highlands.

But there’s not much, and areas like Rancho Bernardo and Rancho Peñasquitos, which were once ripe for development, aren’t anymore, Valone said.

“If you want to buy a home on a new detached lot, that is a dying breed,” Valone said. “It is a concept that is headed toward extinction.”

The city is running out of green space and much of the land that remains is in some way claimed or unviable. There is little raw land left anywhere inside the city limits," Fulton said.

In many cases, remaining open spaces are already spoken for in the form of entitlements and plans.

So San Diego does seem likely to be the biggest U.S. city currently grappling with a debate over urban development forced by the city’s dearth of raw land.

San Diego has responded with a series of policy decisions, including a 2008 general plan update that encourages more urbanized development. Now, as the city gets to work revising and creating several new community plans, the shift will likely be more apparent throughout the city.

That won’t translate into transit projects or high rises in every neighborhood but it will mean a focus shift away from cars and toward multi-family properties and dense development along transit corridors."

Per the article, with only 2 percent of city land vacant, it's clear that the magnitude of dense developments will be self-limiting by virtue of the scarcity of land, and that SFH's may be highly coveted as we move forward.

Of course, as TS mentioned, housing options expand as you move further away from the city, but my comments, and as noted in the article, concern the lack of buildable land left within 10-15 miles of the coast--which is where many people prefer to live.

Submitted by XBoxBoy on August 4, 2016 - 6:22am.

In regards to the question of available land, the report linked by the OP states, "In fact, there is now more available land than ever, as at least 48,000 acres of agricultural land has been downgraded as “inferior” over the past 20 years."

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 4, 2016 - 8:51am.

The-Shoveler wrote:
flyer wrote:
From what my developer friends tell me, the lack of buildable land here will be
self-limiting as far as development goes, so regardless of whether you're for or against it won't, imo, really matter.

Along the immediate coast that may be true, but inland there is an enormous amount of buildable land left in SD county especially the further north you go.

Not everyone needs to live in the first 5 miles of the coast.

If there is a lack of land it is because of zoning.

North County will see the bulk of the new development and biz in the next few decades IMO.

I've come to agree with you shoveler. It will be a combination of higher density and more sprawl, small scale "imitation cities" in the suburbs and exurbs, and also repurposing of shopping centers to include residences.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 4, 2016 - 9:21am.

Any engineers out there? Why can't we have a revolution in housing technology and come up with quality affordable prefab?

http://youtu.be/oe-p-oSvBpo

Also why can't we have high rises over shopping centers such as UTC and have people use public transport and car sharing services?

I'm surprised nobody is talking about innovation.

I'd love for companies like Qualcomm to get variances to build residential highrises right next to their office buildings or even combine live/work in buildings. The facilities/parking would thus get 24 hour use. Residents could live near their work and be more productive. We'd also lower the region's carbon footprint.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 4, 2016 - 10:05am.

Myriad wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
READ MY LIPS, shoveler. There is NO MORE LAND left in SD County for subdivisions! Deal with it.

Except for the thousands of homesites that are being prepped along the 56 and Carmel Valley Road in NC.
Mira Mesa also seems to be ok with building dense multi-family housing.
Isn't most or all of that area part of the vast acreage long-owned (for 25-30 yrs) by Pardee? If so, that was actually subdivided more than 20 years ago but not built on because good defense jobs were leaving SD County in droves at the time and our region was in a recession. I was speaking of *new* land within the county available for subdivision.

Submitted by covidwithlime on August 4, 2016 - 10:25am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I'd love for companies like Qualcomm to get variances to build residential highrises right next to their office buildings or even combine live/work in buildings. The facilities/parking would thus get 24 hour use. Residents could live near their work and be more productive. We'd also lower the region's carbon footprint.
That's what Stone Creek in MM will try to be. The development will have 750k sq-ft of office space.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 4, 2016 - 10:37am.

scottinob wrote:
You are being very very selfish and just downright mean bearishgurl. Your theory that "If you don't build it, they won't come" is simplistic and wrong. (Look at San Francisco, they stopped building and people didn't stop coming.). . .
Actually, SF (city and county) had a stagnant (or even declining) population until it began permitting high-rise residential towers in certain (few) districts where the prior zoning (mostly commercial) would lend itself to this type of project (examples: Tenderloin, SoMA). Property owners in Districts which are high up and zoned 95% residential (save for a few mom-pop stores) actually "own" their view easements. Thus, nothing can be built to block their (panoramic) views. Other low-lying districts but situated oceanfront (ex: Richmond) or at the foot of the bridge and protected state parkland (ex: Presidio) are very strictly zoned 1-4 units per bldg, as are many other districts. In addition, much of the land in SF was set aside for parkland nearly 80-100 years ago and that will never change.

The (mostly public/private) partnerships formed during the recession (2007 thru 2011) to create more housing in SF in the form of infill high-rise towers were just getting off the ground then and these towers have been slowly coming online for available rental units since about 2013. The vast majority of these units are only suitable for a single or a roommate situation (2-3 people), are small in square footage and even have pull-down "murphy beds" and "kitchenettes" to save space during the day. A handful of (low and mid-rise) "luxury condo complexes" have also been built there in recent years in those districts (situated lower) which permitted them. These new condo complexes were built on one or more parcels which formerly had 1-4 unit bldgs on them. In other words, in long-zoned residential areas which permitted slight variances for these projects (if done tasteful enough to blend in with the District's architecture and provided underground parking for its residents).

Any population increase which has occurred in the City of SF in recent years has resulted from the newer residential towers recently built. Sure, people "move there" every day. But the majority of them are moving into a unit which may be up to 100 years old which another tenant just moved out of. Or bought a flat, bldg or SFR to move into the unit which the owner just vacated (also up to 100 yrs old). That isn't population increase. That is simply replacement and does not affect the population of the city.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 4, 2016 - 12:16pm.

AN wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
Those areas were never zoned residential to begin with, so developers of those (infill) projects didn't need to inform all homeowners whose parcel is located up to 300 feet from the proposed project for their "input" because there were no such residential parcels.
Factually incorrect. Stone Creek was in the community plan decades ago. Here's the plan from 1994. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/f... So yeah, stick with the facts if you can.
I did "stick with the facts." I understand the 22-year old "Master Plan" of that area. I looked the whole thing over when you first posted it. A local government's "Master plan" or "General Plan" doesn't in any way, shape or form mean that any land they have "earmarked" for future residential development has actually already been subdivided for that use ... or even that there are any pending applications for subdivision at the time the Master Plan was created. What I stated on this thread was that there were "no residential parcels within 300 feet" of this project who had the right to formally object to it. Sure, City can hold multiple "public community meetings" or "town hall" meetings to explain to Mira Mesans (in this case) what is going to go down on this land which was long used for heavy industry and even possibly strip mining. They can put on a dog and pony show for you and get community "input" to pretend like they care what you all think (for public relations purposes). But since there were no real affected homeowners in accordance with municipal code and state law, they can (and will) essentially grant any subdivision permits they wish in the back room and appear like they are "satisfying" Mira Mesans desires by widening affected streets and permitting a parking garage.

AN, you have to ask yourself how MM went from less than a 20K pop in 1980 (vast majority SFR dwellers) to the mini-megalopolis it is today, where it takes now over 30 minutes to travel the 5-6 miles? between I-15 and I-805 on MM Blvd. Were all your "old timers" asleep at the switch when City decided to cram another 50K people on that same ~10K AC (size of MM) since then? And they're not done with you guys just yet. They're apparently now going to cram another ~10K people in your neck of the woods directly atop likely highly-toxic soil ... assuming there IS still any soil left in the first 8 feet, lol. (Ask Denverites and Boulder [CO] residents how that turned out for them.) Oh, and this project is going to be built adjacent to multiple low-rise chain hotels which bring another 400 to 1000 (temporary) "residents'" vehicles to your streets on any given day. Sounds to me like a recipe for permanent gridlock :=0

AN wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
In sum, CA boomers and seniors were "trained" and "encouraged" to "hoard homes." They came by that habit honestly and so we can't blame them for doing it. That's what our esteemed state gubment wants them to do.
Doesn't matter. I want SD to grow not stay stagnant. Which mean I want A LOT more development. So, it's perfectly fine old timer can stay in their home with their low tax bases.
AN, I agree with you that people who owned their CA homes at the time of the passage of Prop 13 (1978) and still own (and reside) in them today should be able to keep their ultra-low assessments. But that's not what happened with Prop 13. It was essentially "amended" in the mid-eighties to allow those "old timers" to deed their (assessment-protected) homes to their children (Prop 58) and grandchildren, if their parent is deceased (Prop 193) while alive or allow their child(ren) to deed it to themselves upon their death(s). What this did is create a whole new subset of owners of CA homes with permanently-protected assessments who are as young as 25 years old! These younger, able-bodied "heirs" are now enjoying their parent(s) or grandparents(s) ultra-low assessment and paying $400 to $1800 annually in property taxes (depending on area) while their poor-schmuck next-door neighbors are paying $3500 to as much as $14K annually in taxes! The ill-conceived progeny of Prop 13 created a gross inequality among homeowners with the same type of home on the same block by unjustly enriching (undeserving) "heirs" with up to a 90% discount off their property tax bills! Many of these Gen-X/boomer "heirs" inherited HUGE apt complexes and commercial property (with long-term lease income attached to it) and will collect many thousands in rents annually for life whilst paying a property tax bill which is 80-90% discounted! What this has done is created the "haves" and the "have-nots" in this state based only on the family's longetivity of residence in this state and for no other reason. It doesn't matter if the "heir" (who is getting the 80-90% property tax discount) spent half their life in state prison, has never worked a day in their lives, does not even possess a GED, has never served in the military, has never been and is not disabled or moved into their recently deceased parent's home from living in their car or van for the last few years. It doesn't matter if they have the ability to even pay the few hundred in taxes annually that they owe or the ability to financially maintain said property and the motivation to keep the landscaping up and minor repairs done. All that matters is WHO they are and that they are the rightful "heir" of their parent or grandparent's property. This lecture was given to me by one of the top probate attorneys in the county and I have permanently filed it in back of my brain.

Thus, more and more properties in CA's well-established areas (ESP valuable coastal parcels) will be handed down into perpetuity and will likely never be available for sale. They are permanently off the market! Our state gubment created this ridiculous "mechanism" and have been suffering mightily for it for decades but there are too many people these sections benefit (who actually vote regularly) so the "political appetite" is not yet there for our legislators to introduce a repeal of Props 58 and 193. Until CA voters wake up and revolt and press their legislators to do something about it, nothing will ever be done about it. The problem is, in many CA counties (SD included), hundreds of subdivisions have been built (incl those in "master-planned communities") since the passage of Props 58 and 193 and a HUGE percentage of voters now lives in them. They don't see first-hand (as do established-area dwellers) that they are paying among the highest property taxes on the block (by thousands) for a property of lesser-market value than their able-bodied neighbors who are "protected" by Props 58 and 193. Part of the reason that many of them are living in these outer subdivisions to begin with is that they wanted to live closer in when they were home-shopping but couldn't find anything in the established areas they were shopping in which they could afford. The reason for the sticky prices and holdout sellers (even in established inland areas) is because of a perpetual and constant dearth of inventory in their neighborhoods. The reason for that is entirely due to Props 13, 58 and 193.

AN, are you okay with Props 58 and 193 or do you think they should be repealed?

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/pro...

And where is that proposed MM trolley-line map you promised me? The maps you posted here only included the UTC area.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 4, 2016 - 12:48pm.

You're so obstinate, BG. People who like it crowded, close to shopping, restaurants and work, will gravitate to more crowded area. People who don't will move away.

Lifestyles change. And younger people now prefer to live in an urban setting, taking public transport, uber, and car share. The urban geography will change. San Diego is kinda behind... You have area like Tyson's corner near DC that has evolved over the decades.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tysons+c...

I'll answer the question you posed to AN. No we should not repeal the propositions that allow owners to enjoy low property taxes. The government does not need more money. Want more money? Build more and create new wealth and new assessable parcels.

Submitted by flyer on August 4, 2016 - 4:13pm.

It's true that a certain demographic of younger people don't seem to mind living in high density areas, but, just for another frame of reference, all of the many young people we know who are our kids' ages, professionals, married, in relationships, or otherwise, and have or want kids, without exception, would like to have SFH's, as our kids' have found they prefer after moving into their own homes.

From that perspective, many are unable to get what they really want, and it doesn't look like that situation will improve going forward in CA--especially in SAN--per the scarcity of land.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 4, 2016 - 4:23pm.

flyer wrote:
It's true that a certain demographic of younger people don't seem to mind living in high density areas, but, just for another frame of reference, all of the many young people we know who are our kids' ages, professionals, married, in relationships, or otherwise, and have or want kids, without exception, would like to have SFH's, as our kids' have found they prefer after moving into their own homes.

From that perspective, many are unable to get what they really want, and it doesn't look like that situation will improve going forward in CA--especially in SAN--per the scarcity of land.

flyer, do you think a 20 or 30-something millenial should be able to buy the kind of house they prefer (as well as where they prefer it) for their first home or within 5-10 years of graduating from college?

Do you personally feel it is a travesty that this group can't get the housing that they "really want?" And should they be able to buy it in your opinion?

Submitted by flyer on August 4, 2016 - 4:36pm.

BG, I completely understand where you are coming from, and I don't believe anyone is entitled to anything. I'm simply discussing this issue from a scarcity of land perspective, not from the perspective you've been discussing. That's an entirely different discussion, and one that I will leave in your able hands.

Submitted by covidwithlime on August 4, 2016 - 5:24pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
I did "stick with the facts." I understand the 22-year old "Master Plan" of that area. I looked the whole thing over when you first posted it. A local government's "Master plan" or "General Plan" doesn't in any way, shape or form mean that any land they have "earmarked" for future residential development has actually already been subdivided for that use ... or even that there are any pending applications for subdivision at the time the Master Plan was created. What I stated on this thread was that there were "no residential parcels within 300 feet" of this project who had the right to formally object to it. Sure, City can hold multiple "public community meetings" or "town hall" meetings to explain to Mira Mesans (in this case) what is going to go down on this land which was long used for heavy industry and even possibly strip mining. They can put on a dog and pony show for you and get community "input" to pretend like they care what you all think (for public relations purposes). But since there were no real affected homeowners in accordance with municipal code and state law, they can (and will) essentially grant any subdivision permits they wish in the back room and appear like they are "satisfying" Mira Mesans desires by widening affected streets and permitting a parking garage.
What's the point of having a Master/General/Community plan and updating it periodically base on current community input if some newcommer can poopoo on the plan. If you're a long term resident and weren't involved when the plan was created or updated, then you're SOL.

bearishgurl wrote:
AN, you have to ask yourself how MM went from less than a 20K pop in 1980 (vast majority SFR dwellers) to the mini-megalopolis it is today, where it takes now over 30 minutes to travel the 5-6 miles? between I-15 and I-805 on MM Blvd. Were all your "old timers" asleep at the switch when City decided to cram another 50K people on that same ~10K AC (size of MM) since then? And they're not done with you guys just yet. They're apparently now going to cram another ~10K people in your neck of the woods directly atop likely highly-toxic soil ... assuming there IS still any soil left in the first 8 feet, lol. (Ask Denverites and Boulder [CO] residents how that turned out for them.) Oh, and this project is going to be built adjacent to multiple low-rise chain hotels which bring another 400 to 1000 (temporary) "residents'" vehicles to your streets on any given day. Sounds to me like a recipe for permanent gridlock :=0
Over 30 minutes? Really? When's the last time you've made the trek? You really don't know what it's like to live there. The daily traffic doesn't affect me or others who live here as much as it affects people who don't live here, who have to get in/out of MM along with everyone else who don't live here. All I have to say is, you're factually incorrect. No, the old timer aren't asleep. MM is developed according to the plan. So, nothing is shocking there. It's just shocking to those like yourself who don't know the history of this area. I'm so glad the "old timers" here aren't like you. MM is 10X better today than it was in the 70s. I would be buying here if MM stayed how it was from the 70s.

bearishgurl wrote:
And where is that proposed MM trolley-line map you promised me? The maps you posted here only included the UTC area.
I already gave you the info. It's part of the Stone Creek development. It's being extended from UTC to Stone Creek. BTW, it would only happen if people like you don't poopoo the plan and force the reduction of density. If the density get reduced, then the trolley plan is in jeopardy as well.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 4, 2016 - 5:32pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

flyer, do you think a 20 or 30-something millenial should be able to buy the kind of house they prefer (as well as where they prefer it) for their first home or within 5-10 years of graduating from college?

Do you personally feel it is a travesty that this group can't get the housing that they "really want?" And should they be able to buy it in your opinion?

Theoretically, sure, why not?
Americans generally have better standard of living than other people around the world because our housing is much cheaper relative to income.

Why can't we increase supply to provide people with affordable, comfortable housing. We are only limited my human creativity. Many of the constraints we have face are self imposed.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 4, 2016 - 6:03pm.

flyer wrote:
BG, I completely understand where you are coming from, and I don't believe anyone is entitled to anything. I'm simply discussing this issue from a scarcity of land perspective, not from the perspective you've been discussing. That's an entirely different discussion, and one that I will leave in your able hands.
I don't believe the "scarcity of land in SAN" affects ALL millenials. Maybe a small fraction who are insisting on new construction for their first home.

We just had a new poster post on this thread last night (scottinob) who believes, as a millenial, that he should be able to buy or rent in the area where he grew up in. Essentially, he feels he should be able to live near extended family. Assuming arguendo that his screen name denotes his current area of residence (OB), this must have been the area where he posted he recently got a rent increase of $250 month. If OB (or nearby PL) is where he is from and his "extended family" resides, then naturally, he will not be able to afford to buy in there for his first home, unless he gets substantial help from family. He can shop for SFRs in nearby Linda Vista and Clairemont when he gets a downpayment saved up. The scarcity of land for new subdivisions in the "north 40 full of 1500 lb boulders to clear on a rugged, hilly swath of land east of Rainbow, 7 miles east of I-15 off Lilac Rd" does not affect this (native San Diegan) poster who may want to buy in OB! Whether or not the "suburbs of Valley Center" are ever even subdivided and developed ... or not ... is not going to affect the RE prices and rental prices in OB one iota.

Scott, please feel free to chime in, here. I'm just using your post for an example and the way I read it between the lines may or may not be accurate.

Sure, we looked in OB to buy our first house back in the day, like any wishful 20-something would. But the listing with the cheapest run-down termite-eaten shack on a substandard lot there with a dirt alley and street parking only (IF you could get a space) had an asking price of $88,900 and at a 12-15% prevailing mortgage interest rate, we only qualified to buy a $73K property (max). Like many young people, our families resided more than 1000 miles away in a locale with much cheaper housing and could not help us. Them's the breaks! We were young and had to pay our dues somewhere else in SD ... like nearly everyone else does. Of course, we bought elsewhere and in the ensuing years, we lost interest in OB.

Whatever happened to a 20 or 30-something having to pay their dues first by buying a "starter home" in a "starter area?" What happened to that concept? These kids today take off out of their starting blocks the day after college graduation, land their first FT jobs and expect almost immediately to have everything their 50+ year-old parent(s) took 25-30 years to acquire. I'm not speaking for every millenial but that mindset/attitude is what I have seen from most of the one's I know, including my own kid(s) (although they don't aspire to buy RE as the prices where they live [SF] are thru the stratosphere).

Unrealistic fantastical expectations are severely hampering many millenials from buying their own homes in CA coastal counties ... even if they are qualified and have saved a downpayment. It's like nothing I have ever seen in my entire life. Many of them would rather sit out and rent than buy a property which they feel is less than they feel they are "entitled" to own, even if qualified to buy. This (and the fact that there are so many people competing for good rental homes because they lost their home to foreclosure/short sale in the past 7 years and can't get a mortgage) are why there are so many prospective tenant applications for each advertised rental and rents have skyrocketed in SoCal, due to the sheer demand for them. Many SD millenials today would rather be a tenant (subject to rent hikes and non-renewal of their lease) than to purchase a home they can afford in an area they can afford ... even if they're qualified to buy and have a downpayment. That's the way I see it.

flyer, your kids grew up inside the covenant, no? Do they and their peers (who also may have grown up inside the covenant) feel that they must have a comparable home in a comparable area for their first home? You've posted several times in the past here that your kids' HS friends and your friends and neighbors' kids became highly disillusioned and depressed because they were unable to land a job in their fields in SD after graduating from college so I was just wondering if they expected that they would be able to have their first home inside the covenant :=0

I think the ultra-pickiness of many in the millenial homebuying generation (comparable to the size of the boomer generation back in the '70's and early '80's) is what is contributing to the public angst re: lack of new construction available in SD County. I don't think the (oft-touted by the MSM but wholly inaccurate) "housing shortage" is actually "real" in SD County. I think there is plenty of every type of housing for rent and for sale available in SD County at any given time. I just think the millenial home-shopping set is gravitating only to a handful of zip codes for the perceived "lifestyle" they offer. They want to live NOW in what they want, where they want it. When all of them want the same thing, of course, this creates a "shortage" of it. They cannot substitute buying a nice well-built house on a large lot that they can afford in Lemon Grove because that is not what they want, where they want it so they rent in the area they want to live in (or as close to it as they can afford to).

Ten years later, home prices have climbed in the double digits and this group is still renting (but complaining that it is getting too expensive to live where they want to or already forced to rent in another less-desired area.)

This doesn't bode well for millenials' future net worth (as a group) but they are willingly doing it to themselves. I hear a lot of complaints on this board and in real estate articles I subscribe to about how millenials won't ever be able to have what their Gen X or boomer parents have and I just don't buy it. The truth is, they don't want it bad enough. They don't want to do what it takes to get it. This generation appears to have adopted a "live for now" motto.

[end of rant]

Comment viewing options

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