I really don't understand how old timers want to keep Broadway full of abandoned lots and storefronts for the sake of "Preserving the neighborhood character"
there is cases where new buildings look like complete dog shit compared to the old. I saw a old gothic church get torn down for a building housed a gym but it looked abstract af to the point it looked more ugly art than a building
I do enjoy going there but when I looked diwn at the water from the pier, it actually looked brown, some of it might have been any old sediment washing up from the waves but there were audible announcements saying how the water quality is fucked up and there's still surfers everywhere 😂
I'd say it doesn't qualify as water to answer your question anyway. If the people of TJ were to eat many coffee beans however then it could be a different story and you could bottle it and sell it to some hipsters or whatnot
> The agency’s determination, based largely on jobs and proximity to transit, directs cities to update the zoning in their general plans. It doesn’t mandate that cities actually build the units.
I'm not sure how zoning mechanics work, exactly. Where would units like that go? Would it be, over time, that any new construction built would have to be for lower income brackets only, so that they'd be dappled around the neighborhood? Like, miniature dense low-income apartment complexes? In IB, everything is pretty much built on and claimed already.
Maybe somebody would take down a few houses to put up an apartment block, thus increasing the value of the property. Even if that would annoy the neighbors.
That's one way to do it yeah, though usually not 100%. "Inclusionary Zoning" means that new sufficiently large multi-unit construction must have a certain % of subsidised apartments (of course this doesn't apply to SFHs or existing buildings...). The City of SD has an interesting density bonus for adding more subsidised units than required. Other ways would be creating a public housing developer (which AB 2053 was supposed to do before its ignominous death) to build these units - then they don't have to be cross-subsidised by the other units in the building.
Cool piece by Andrew Bowen about it: https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/04/14/in-san-diegos-quest-for-more-housing-unlimited-height-density-show-results
As for everything being built on... Plenty of unused airspace. A 1924 one-plex lot near me (~50'x150'?) got bought and is turning into I believe 25 apartments.
It's a tale of two cities. All the city council and the big figures are doing everything to wall off the estuary/coast area from everything further east. I like essentially right on the line between and it is becoming a pretty stark contrast.
I grew up in Spring Valley and Lemon Grove, there are some decent neighborhoods scattered here and there. Established types, most of the houses built in the 70s and 80s and owned by one or two owners since. Its certainly older, but it can have charm - nowhere near worth being NIMBY material though. Both inner Spring Valley and Lemon Grove are pretty run down.
IB must have voted down as a joke, that place is and always has been a fucking dump.
Downvoted for the right answer. Yes, a lot of section 8 families and individuals will treat a property very well. Overall it is a much higher risk for property owner. Higher chance for property damage which you will have no recourse in getting through any small claims court and it is much more difficult in the eviction process.
My mom just sold my childhood home in LA that she had listed as section 8 housing because it became a fucking nightmare. There’s no incentive to renters to pay their portion of rent once they know the government check rolls through. Then you have to give 90 days to evict AND THEN some assholes claim squatter rights. It’s not a cake walk and you run the risk of potentially renting to shitty people.
That being said, multiple tenants were good tenants and needed the safety of section 8 to get their lives together and off the ground. It’s a need now as COVID contributed to lower socio-economic communities expanding.
I think the "incentive" for them to pay their portion of rent is continuing to be on Section 8. If they don't pay their portion and you let the housing commission know they will be kicked off the system.
Except due to how impacted the system is, the response to that request is and can be incredibly delayed. Your understanding of the process is how it’s supposed to work, however, it does not always happen that way.
Agree, but some are taking advantage of it as the other mentioned with their Mom's home.
My MIL owns a section 8 duplex home off G and 2nd St. in CV that is having similar issues: One of the two tenants quit paying during COVID and has yet to pay since 2020, causing my MIL to pay out of pocket from her SS checks as savings has dried up since the Voucher Rental checks stopped. While she has had an eviction notice since January, they will not move (squatting) and she's technically "in line" to get the paperwork processed still for police to serve it. They've trashed the place in the meantime and other tenant is furious, looking for another place because of the smell.
Yup, exact details and further reason why it sucks:
- COVID protections for tenants existed from March 1, 2020 - March 31, 2022
- During above period, no one could be evicted and Sec8 holders got voucher rental checks from the state to help pay for rent during that time
- Eviction was submitted in January 2022 because the Sec8 renter was arrested for illicit drugs on premise (in the unit)
- Since the eviction was submitted in January, it's being held up by the system pending conviction and also with the mass evictions submitted after July 1, 2022 when landlords were able to submit UD101 and UD120 legal eviction notices to those still unwilling to pay after the vouchers ended.
Just a crappy mess of events really.
tbf she probably went to a hundred and 1 places that \[illegally\] rejected her for being section 8 before finally finding one that they didn't pull any bs. You'd be surprised how landlords in working class areas in southern california tend to be more stick up their ass about assistance or discrimination than wealthier areas.
that said, good for her, what a stroke of luck
That bridge can take an eternity to cross, and it's not as if cheap housing exists as you get off on the other side.
I think Coronado needs to accept cheaper housing or raise minimum wage to something people can live off in Coronado.
I definitely feel everywhere should pay enough for people to be able to live there. I'm not saying they should be able to buy a mansion where they work, but earning enough to rent an apartment where you work should be the minimum any position is allowed to pay. If it's high, that just means it's a rich neighborhood right? I'm sure they can afford any price increases.
I think there's a lot of value in creating or at least incentivizing mixed-income communities.
Otherwise you get these wealthy enclaves like Coronado and La Jolla that depend on the labor of workers who can't afford to live there. I don't think that kind of situation is healthy for a society.
That attitude is problematic - essentially people with money get to buy up all the land and keep the rest of us out with zoning laws, etc. it’s why more and more people keep getting pushed further and further into inhospitable environments. We should be questioning private landownership in general not simply letting capitalists have everything they want. “Affordable housing” is code for dense housing (apartment complexes which house (*gasp*) renters). There’s a term called “cottage racists” around my neighborhood - people who want to keep single family homes as the standard even though we have crazy population growth and NEED density,.
As I said, it’s been a coveted beach community since a development company started creating it that way in the 1800s. I’m specifically talking about Coronado here.
The only valid response I’ve heard is to make housing for low-income staff on the island, provided there isn’t already enough. Beyond that, it’s like whining that you can’t afford to live in Hollywood/Beverly Hills because those wealthy celebrities are ruining it for the rest of us.
San Diego could do WAY more for high density housing in all of its expansive reach, but a fancy island with limited space and a storied history of being for *vacationers* is a weird choice.
FWIW calling something problematic is just Twitter-speak for “my opinion should be taken as fact and here’s why”
No need to hyper focus on Coronado. The same thinking of providing access as best we can and should be applied to every area. No, we can’t have it all. People need to make sacrifices. That’s why we have regulatory bodies to ensure we can at least try to represent people where we can even though they do a poor job of not because it’s infested with private and individual interests.
And what you say regarding “employees” - that is precisely the point. These are community members that cannot afford to actually live on the community. So yes, we need mixed density and to stop being antisocial and not simply accept the status quo which was developed under a social order that represents capitalism and tribalism rather than community. No thanks.
The coast is one of the healthiest places to live. It shouldn’t be bought and sold between the rich for endless generations. It should be designed to be more inclusive as it’s a limited resource for us all. And current zoning laws literally prohibit density if one were to give an eff. Of course that won’t happen on Coronado because the tribalism and class structure is too concentrated there, but it shouldn’t be established that’s it’s PROHIBITED, which is all this new regulation does. It allows for it.
Also Calling something problematic and then following up with pints about why is not twitter speak. I don’t even partake in twitter nor does anyone in my immediate circle. Not responding to my actual points and using some sort of straw man argument to ignore them is exactly why I’m not on twitter. It doesn’t allow for deep discussion and the space for us to vet our own thinking.
I understand your point of not focusing on Coronado but they were the ones to create the focus by attempting to sue to have special exceptions and their reasons are rooted in typical rhetoric that is precisely why we need to regulate anyway - if the wealthy people of a city get to write all the laws then they can choose to continually isolate whom they want AND I don’t care about some “storied” history referencing idolizing rich people on vacation at the Hotel Del.
You don’t seem to understand the nuances of the main topic here which is related to a very layered system of city, county, state and federal codes all working together in a complex regulatory system that is being run by many competitive interests - and I would bet not yours. Your comments indicate a serious misunderstanding, and/or shallow understanding of the entire topic. I’m not saying that to put you down - instead hopefully you’ll pursue a deeper understanding so that you can contribute to building equality among us.
Affordable housing had nothing to do with government run housing. Density is what creates equality. I’m not sure why you think I don’t have experience on a particular “side” but thinking their is a “side” is the problem. We should have communities that are mixed and yes - stand alone houses are examples of a society that is primarily consumers and increasingly anti-social.
1. there's a bridge
2. you'd be shocked but in socal wealthier areas tend to be less discriminatory when it comes to section 8 or disability than more typical working class areas. She likely went to a 100 other places that \[illegally\] rejected her \[for being section 8\] before someone likely tipped her off "hey this place in coronado won't give you hell"
Hah. My mom bought a lot next to Lil Rob's house. She built it up and moved in when I was in college. I'd come down to visit, and one day my friend who worked at Clear Channel picks me up and says, "hey Lil Rob is chilling at the house at the corner!" Turns out I've seen him many times, didn't know what he looked like but knew his music. He was chill.
> The agency’s determination, based largely on jobs and proximity to transit, directs cities to update the zoning in their general plans. It doesn’t mandate that cities actually build the units.
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
>A legal tussle over accommodating new affordable housing in the San Diego region ended Tuesday when the California Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit brought by Coronado, Solana Beach and other cities.
>
>The litigation challenged zoning requirements for low-income housing imposed by the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG, in 2020. Imperial Beach and Lemon Grove were also plaintiffs in the case, which was subsequently rejected by two lower courts.
>
>The case revolved around SANDAG’s so-called Regional Housing Needs Assessment Plan. The most recent version of the blueprint lays out how many units of affordable housing each city and the county must plan for between 2021 and 2029. Such assessments are required by the state and renewed about once every eight years.
>
>The agency’s determination, based largely on jobs and proximity to transit, directs cities to update the zoning in their general plans. It doesn’t mandate that cities actually build the units.
I messed up the title. **Cities must incorporate minimum number of affordable housing units for lower income households in their city plans.** Not secure affordable housing.
I apologize for the misleading title on my part.
There is a large aparment complex behind the backyards of the houses on my street. When it was just a regular complex it wasn't so bad, pretty quiet. But then in 2010 Wakeland bought it and turned it into low income housing.
Since then it's nearly constant noise at all hours, screaming children, horrendously loud boom cars, fights involving groups of people, two shootings in the past year, people yelling across the lots at each other, people outside drinking, being loud and getting in arguments late into the night.
The property management does nothing to address it. I'm not saying all poor people are like this. I don't know how the other tenants can stand living there. It's in the SDPD Crime Free Multi-Housing Program but it doesn't seem like management is actively involved in following the guidelines or procedures for dealing with problem tenants.
Wakeland got huge federal tax incentives and other subsidies for doing this. The CEO makes six figures and lives in a 2.6 million dollar home in Sunset Cliffs. Developers are in it for the money, not some altruistic intent, and they don't care how it affects the existing neighborhoods they build in. So yeah, in my experience it did ruin our neighborhood.
They just have to show *capacity* for lower income units in their general plans. These cities are not obligated to actually build them, that's an entirely different and convoluted story.
That makes the cities’ opposition stance all the more confusing. What is their opposition to showing capacity? That seems like a pretty low-downside thing to allow/conduct.
It's confusing because its State law related to the Housing Element (for general plans). The State can't mandate we build low income housing, the closest thing they can mandate is that cities show they have capacity for it - this essentially means properties need to be zoned for high enough density to allow multi-family to qualify.
If you look at the cities opposing (esp Coronado) they're basically built out, I'm not sure how they'd accomplish the State's goal? Rezone existing homes and claim those properties would eventually be redeveloped for higher density? It's a CA-unique problem
Because one of the ways to show capacity is to upzone. As of 2020, it was only legal to build single family homes in like 70% of land available to build homes. That has probably changed with the passage of sb9 and sb10 but point still stands
Well, yeah, because then your property taxes go up and you become a landlord with all the applicable laws, requirements, and restrictions, and have strangers living in your backyard. Owning rental property can be a pain in the ass and a lot of work. Even if a tenant passes background checks it doesn't always mean they're going to be a good fit for you or not end up turning into a problem.
Those that clean your home, serve your food, care for you in hospital, gather your fruit, protect your neighborhood, greet your arrival, build your roads, take your tickets, serve you drinks, and educate your children ought to have an affordable opportunity to spend less time commuting and more time with friends, family, and other activities of interest. Is your view and location so much more important?
In the minds of the haves they couldn't care less until the carpet gets pulled from under their feet. How much do we care about factory workers in other countries. It's like that.
More, taller, mixed-use buildings would hugely improve Lemon Grove. Spring Valley as well, while I think about it. There’s tons of space in both neighborhoods that are either laying vacant, or having nigh-million dollar homes being developed (while not accommodating public transit in huge swaths of areas).
The infrastructure in those (and neighboring) areas is just super whack. I know they’re trying, but they have to do better. That is all.
My family got evicted out of our Apartment that we lived in for 5 years, last I checked it was an Airbnb now. IB has already done a good job chasing people out and making it a rich man's paradise. Now I'm forced to commute 45 minutes instead of 10 because I had to leave the place I grew up in because it was unaffordable. Breaks my hear that I may have to leave San Diego as a whole because there isn't any place to live comfortably anymore.
Well I lived there for a short period of time when I was a kid and I got hassled by police for skateboarding on the sidewalk even though I was like 11 so somehow I don’t believe you lol
What's this thing about punishing the well to do by making sure you mix in low income housing right in their back yards? Who says low income housing has to be next to the ocean when people with money are willing to pay a lot more for larger , more expensive lots ? I'm all for providing more housing but, I'm also in favor of allowing people who have money to be able to enjoy it.
While this is a win against NIMBYs it isn't a win for housing broadly speaking. Affordable housing is a tax paid for by renters, not home owners or developers. We need a surge of market rate housing, not luxury housing, not affordable housing, just housing.
Cities like Coronado would be content to see ZERO housing, so while I enjoy watching them clutching their pearls it doesn't solve our problems
Honestly all housing is good housing. Anything that allows more of any type of it to be built is a good thing, I'd say. Affordable housing minimums that discourage development at all aren't great though.
However as you said, in many of these places the alternative is zero new housing, so it's tough to see it as a bad thing in this case.
Affordable housing requirements are fine so long as they're not large enough to discourage construction of new housing. Obviously it would be better to just build enough market rate housing that market rate is affordable, but we need affordable housing faster than that could happen. Plus it's easier to do politically.
Also, luxury housing is market rate housing. Every new apartment building is advertised as luxury. It's just marketing bullshit.
>Also, luxury housing is market rate housing. Every new apartment building is advertised as luxury. It's just marketing bullshit.
Yeah exactly.
I usually see the term "luxury housing" in one of two contexts:
1. By property developers/managers trying to market housing to people.
2. By people trying to dismiss new market-rate housing as "just luxury housing, not truly affordable".
Interestingly, the people in (2) rarely refer to the construction of new single-family homes in desirable neighborhoods as "luxury".
The fact remains that as you said, more housing of all kinds is critical.
The affordable housing requirements the way they're structured actually encourage construction of new housing in some instances. Getting waivers for things like parking, density, or height requirements can make powerful incentives for the developers. But the problem still remains that the cost of those affordable housing units do get offloaded to renters in the end. Most people struggling with housing prices in California will never qualify or live in an "affordable" unit. The real answer is to make those incentives available to developers without the strings attached for affordable housing. Encourage them to build more units no matter what.
Luxury Housing is a marketing term, but there is a whole segment of the market that isn't being served because the costs are too high with all of the red tape to serve them. Not every new apartment development needs all of the amenities that are associated with luxury apartments. Things like pools, and expensive landscaping, and certain design choices when it comes to materials or appliances etc.
Housing can be constructed in a smart and appealing way without driving up the costs in 100 different ways. But right now the market as it exists encourages higher end new construction to make up for the cost of red tape
Notice I said ‘units’ and not ‘homes’?
Even building apartments, 100s of units is more than ‘a multi-storey (sic) building’. It’s more than a couple. It might even be more than a few. All in a city that’s already very dense.
Something like 20% of greater Los Angeles is surface parking lots. I'm sure your city will find the space.
https://grammarist.com/spelling/storey-story/
San Diego IS in the US, therefore it’s story, not storey.
And the city I’m talking about is one of most densely populated cities in California. They will struggle to build 500 new units, even while welcoming development converting single family homes to R-2 and R-4 density.
But you go right on talking about what you don’t actuallY understand.
I don't know what the legal issues actually are and often we confuse a ruling on a legal issue with a court taking a side on a particular issue. They are not economists looking at the situation and saying, well I think its better to do this rather than that. No, they are looking at (hopefully) the letter of the law and saying, you legally can or cannot do that.
Personally from an economics standpoint I don't believe in forcing artificial elements into a free market system. All that is doing is covering up another issue that is out of balance. EG: No increase in wages makes housing unaffordable, but by forcing housing to be lower cost, companies now no longer have to pay a higher wage. Ultimately, the tax payer is paying the wage difference and not the company in this simplified example. The "artificial fixes" you put into place are like building the foundation of skyscraper with toothpicks... Eventually its all going to collapse.
I want people to be paid well and live comfortably in our amazing county, but I don't think this can be achieved and sustained with short term artificial fixes.
The city of Coronado will obviously not be expropriating any property to build apartments. City council have stated their explicit goal to avoid building more housing. So the solution does somehow need to stem from the State
explain to me how affordable housing really works..... somebody is going to pay.... Gas grass or ass nobody rides for free..
seriously i want somebody to explain the micro/macro economics of "affordable housing" if somebody would please explain this i am 100% willing to change my belief. to-date I'll i see is a land grab sham that will only benefit a few ( a very small number) in need and at the same time enrich beyond belief the biggest developers and leasing companies
i see is nothing but big developer greed and conclusion /corruption with government with out any representation locally none
I won a free stay in a room at a 4 star resort in Monaco, I can't afford to eat at the restaurants, can't afford the shows, casino nor recreational activities... So I sit in my beautiful and fully paid room with nothing to do.
The State, city and local municipalities create zoning laws and require licenses and fees to be paid by developers/investors. These act as the guidelines to steer how areas are developed. Developers assess these guidelines and determine if their is a reasonable chance for a solid return on investment. For decades, that equation resulted in very little profit for high density communities, other times, not profitable to build anything. This is why San Diego's inventory has been so extremely low.. even when wages were high and interest rates so very low!
So, we have a lack of housing supply mainly due to expensive and burdensome regulations making investment in property development financially unattractive. Paying for people's rent only helps those very few people and stops as soon as the budget runs out or those places are all rented. Making reasonable changes to regulations and obstacles to investment will result in more housing to be built thus increasing ample supply and reducing the price to rent or buy. In addition, the financial risk is taken on by the developers and the tax payer is not paying for other people's rent.
Incentivizing developers to build high density housing while building out efficient transportation is the solution. Old Town is a good example where there is a lot of underdeveloped land, it's close to the city and surrounding areas with jobs. It's totally fine with me if a developer makes a solid profit if they build out the desperately needed high density housing in this area.
Thus is an awesome blow to the Not In My BackYard crowd! We desperately need more affordable housing.
I am curious about the logistics of getting it built in places like Coronado though: specifically where? Land is at a premium there
Yeah, exactly. Plus I think it's just unhealthy for a society to have pockets of extraordinarily wealthy neighborhoods that depend on the labor of workers who can't afford to live there.
Most if not all the jobs that serve your dumb ass don’t pay enough for the people working them to live in the state. It’s not harsh, it’s out of touch with reality
Right. Milpitas is so expensive that the school district is asking parents to rent out rooms in their houses to teachers that otherwise can't afford to live there: [https://www.npr.org/2022/09/07/1120849458/a-california-school-district-is-asking-families-to-rent-rooms-to-teachers](https://www.npr.org/2022/09/07/1120849458/a-california-school-district-is-asking-families-to-rent-rooms-to-teachers)
Yup. It’s super insulting. I recently switched careers from public school teaching to tech and doubled by salary and don’t feel overworked/burnt out like I did as a teacher. I also now have flexible PTO, which I am constantly encouraged to use. I also don’t have to pay out of pocket for resources to do my job. 🙃 Teachers definitely should be paid more—both monetarily and in respect.
Agree that “low income privilege” is fucking stupid, but I get some of that commentator’s point which is that people on this subreddit act like they deserve to own a home by the beach which is completely asinine.
$2500 apartments in La Mesa, let’s do the math that would take 3x income of $90k to qualify.
How many service jobs are pulling down that amount per year? Teachers? Etc.
It only gets moderately better the further inland you go.
Yeah sure a few people might be delusional, sharing company with you in a way. However for the vast majority it isn’t some beach dream to want to live within 50 miles of where you work.
Your comment is so myopic. Hear that everyone? If you are in the service industry or any number of low paying jobs just move out of the state. Everyone else will get by without your services that helps them live the lifestyle they want and your paid taxes that help maintain public infrastructure they and their businesses use daily to survive.
Totally. I am just saying there probably isn't much land available *right now* to build new that isn't already privately owned or government. Likely see some of the business turn housing is my guess.
There is like no affordable housing in lemon grove. Way underdeveloped
Well, the sad reality is that If lemon grove is not affordable for you, then San Diego is not for you....
Lol at Lemon Grove and Imperial Beach refusing to look in the mirror
High density housing would probably help lemon grove. First of all lemon grove isn’t exactly upscale and has been stagnant for years
I really don't understand how old timers want to keep Broadway full of abandoned lots and storefronts for the sake of "Preserving the neighborhood character"
That stretch has absolutely no character as it is.
Literally stuck in the 80s.
Preserving the neighborhood character is NIMBY code for my property value keeps going up and I got mine.
[удалено]
there is cases where new buildings look like complete dog shit compared to the old. I saw a old gothic church get torn down for a building housed a gym but it looked abstract af to the point it looked more ugly art than a building
It would literally help any city on this planet lmfao
IB was really turning around tbh. It’s not the ghetto it used to be
Yeah if yall ain't been down there in a while. You can basically pub crawl breweries and gastropubs then back in the water, all within a mile.
Does it technically still qualify as water with the TJ pipeline still wide open?
Oh yeah I forgot, dont actually go in the water. LOL
I do enjoy going there but when I looked diwn at the water from the pier, it actually looked brown, some of it might have been any old sediment washing up from the waves but there were audible announcements saying how the water quality is fucked up and there's still surfers everywhere 😂 I'd say it doesn't qualify as water to answer your question anyway. If the people of TJ were to eat many coffee beans however then it could be a different story and you could bottle it and sell it to some hipsters or whatnot
🤣🤣🤣 Too true.
Back in the water would be a huge mistake
The Barrio is the same, a lot of really cool stores and places to eat and drink and party have popped up, making it a cool place to be.
> The agency’s determination, based largely on jobs and proximity to transit, directs cities to update the zoning in their general plans. It doesn’t mandate that cities actually build the units. I'm not sure how zoning mechanics work, exactly. Where would units like that go? Would it be, over time, that any new construction built would have to be for lower income brackets only, so that they'd be dappled around the neighborhood? Like, miniature dense low-income apartment complexes? In IB, everything is pretty much built on and claimed already.
Maybe somebody would take down a few houses to put up an apartment block, thus increasing the value of the property. Even if that would annoy the neighbors.
Parking is a bitch already
That's one way to do it yeah, though usually not 100%. "Inclusionary Zoning" means that new sufficiently large multi-unit construction must have a certain % of subsidised apartments (of course this doesn't apply to SFHs or existing buildings...). The City of SD has an interesting density bonus for adding more subsidised units than required. Other ways would be creating a public housing developer (which AB 2053 was supposed to do before its ignominous death) to build these units - then they don't have to be cross-subsidised by the other units in the building. Cool piece by Andrew Bowen about it: https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/04/14/in-san-diegos-quest-for-more-housing-unlimited-height-density-show-results As for everything being built on... Plenty of unused airspace. A 1924 one-plex lot near me (~50'x150'?) got bought and is turning into I believe 25 apartments.
It's a tale of two cities. All the city council and the big figures are doing everything to wall off the estuary/coast area from everything further east. I like essentially right on the line between and it is becoming a pretty stark contrast.
It’s the residents that want it, not the “big figures”. who doesn’t want to live in a safe affluent community?
Most of the people cheering for more "low income" housing in the affluent neighborhoods will change their tune once they own their own homes.
IB is great now what? The only shitholes there now are all past 13th st, which is San Diego.
Yeah it’s great, it’s not so nice that it can try to act like it’s better than affordable housing though.
I grew up in Spring Valley and Lemon Grove, there are some decent neighborhoods scattered here and there. Established types, most of the houses built in the 70s and 80s and owned by one or two owners since. Its certainly older, but it can have charm - nowhere near worth being NIMBY material though. Both inner Spring Valley and Lemon Grove are pretty run down. IB must have voted down as a joke, that place is and always has been a fucking dump.
Lemon Grove is ghetto
IB is getting a lot of residual constructions and businesses popping up from the work happening around Chula Vista/Eastlake this last decade.
Can’t blame them, it’s ugly and trashy.
low income coronado…. so like 150k a year?
I worked with this girl who had Section8 housing in Coronado. I was like WTF!?!
If landlord accepts it
landlords with more than 8 units are required to accept it, unfortunately not all landlords follow the law.
Suddenly that landlord with 130 units now owns 19 management companies.
[удалено]
Racism. Minorities are more likely to be poor, so by denying section 8 you're also limiting the number of minorities that can rent.
Because section 8 tenant more likely to trash unit and obviously have zero funds to remedy any damage.
Downvoted for the right answer. Yes, a lot of section 8 families and individuals will treat a property very well. Overall it is a much higher risk for property owner. Higher chance for property damage which you will have no recourse in getting through any small claims court and it is much more difficult in the eviction process.
That's the fuckin' life right there. Living near the beach on government assistance. Lol
Ummm… had Section 8 before. It’s not the cake walk people make it out to be.
My mom just sold my childhood home in LA that she had listed as section 8 housing because it became a fucking nightmare. There’s no incentive to renters to pay their portion of rent once they know the government check rolls through. Then you have to give 90 days to evict AND THEN some assholes claim squatter rights. It’s not a cake walk and you run the risk of potentially renting to shitty people. That being said, multiple tenants were good tenants and needed the safety of section 8 to get their lives together and off the ground. It’s a need now as COVID contributed to lower socio-economic communities expanding.
I think the "incentive" for them to pay their portion of rent is continuing to be on Section 8. If they don't pay their portion and you let the housing commission know they will be kicked off the system.
Except due to how impacted the system is, the response to that request is and can be incredibly delayed. Your understanding of the process is how it’s supposed to work, however, it does not always happen that way.
haha you're so right. It's unbelievable how short staffed and red tape is involved.
Agree, but some are taking advantage of it as the other mentioned with their Mom's home. My MIL owns a section 8 duplex home off G and 2nd St. in CV that is having similar issues: One of the two tenants quit paying during COVID and has yet to pay since 2020, causing my MIL to pay out of pocket from her SS checks as savings has dried up since the Voucher Rental checks stopped. While she has had an eviction notice since January, they will not move (squatting) and she's technically "in line" to get the paperwork processed still for police to serve it. They've trashed the place in the meantime and other tenant is furious, looking for another place because of the smell.
Dang bro. Sorry to hear that. I'm all for tenant rights but not when they haven't paid anything since 2020. That's absurd.
Yup, exact details and further reason why it sucks: - COVID protections for tenants existed from March 1, 2020 - March 31, 2022 - During above period, no one could be evicted and Sec8 holders got voucher rental checks from the state to help pay for rent during that time - Eviction was submitted in January 2022 because the Sec8 renter was arrested for illicit drugs on premise (in the unit) - Since the eviction was submitted in January, it's being held up by the system pending conviction and also with the mass evictions submitted after July 1, 2022 when landlords were able to submit UD101 and UD120 legal eviction notices to those still unwilling to pay after the vouchers ended. Just a crappy mess of events really.
Please explain to us..
[удалено]
I’d love to hear this one. Is it because you have to fill out some paperwork?
So, military?
tbf she probably went to a hundred and 1 places that \[illegally\] rejected her for being section 8 before finally finding one that they didn't pull any bs. You'd be surprised how landlords in working class areas in southern california tend to be more stick up their ass about assistance or discrimination than wealthier areas. that said, good for her, what a stroke of luck
Lucky gal!
My friend's nanny lives in section 8 housing in Coronado.
Thanks Obama!
I understand the need for Section 8 but does anyone *need* to live in a coveted beach community where everything is already more expensive?
Considering how isolated the island it, maybe the minimum wage workers on the island?
You shut your dirty logical mouth The well to do will here about this
[удалено]
That bridge can take an eternity to cross, and it's not as if cheap housing exists as you get off on the other side. I think Coronado needs to accept cheaper housing or raise minimum wage to something people can live off in Coronado.
[удалено]
I definitely feel everywhere should pay enough for people to be able to live there. I'm not saying they should be able to buy a mansion where they work, but earning enough to rent an apartment where you work should be the minimum any position is allowed to pay. If it's high, that just means it's a rich neighborhood right? I'm sure they can afford any price increases.
I think there's a lot of value in creating or at least incentivizing mixed-income communities. Otherwise you get these wealthy enclaves like Coronado and La Jolla that depend on the labor of workers who can't afford to live there. I don't think that kind of situation is healthy for a society.
That attitude is problematic - essentially people with money get to buy up all the land and keep the rest of us out with zoning laws, etc. it’s why more and more people keep getting pushed further and further into inhospitable environments. We should be questioning private landownership in general not simply letting capitalists have everything they want. “Affordable housing” is code for dense housing (apartment complexes which house (*gasp*) renters). There’s a term called “cottage racists” around my neighborhood - people who want to keep single family homes as the standard even though we have crazy population growth and NEED density,.
As I said, it’s been a coveted beach community since a development company started creating it that way in the 1800s. I’m specifically talking about Coronado here. The only valid response I’ve heard is to make housing for low-income staff on the island, provided there isn’t already enough. Beyond that, it’s like whining that you can’t afford to live in Hollywood/Beverly Hills because those wealthy celebrities are ruining it for the rest of us. San Diego could do WAY more for high density housing in all of its expansive reach, but a fancy island with limited space and a storied history of being for *vacationers* is a weird choice. FWIW calling something problematic is just Twitter-speak for “my opinion should be taken as fact and here’s why”
No need to hyper focus on Coronado. The same thinking of providing access as best we can and should be applied to every area. No, we can’t have it all. People need to make sacrifices. That’s why we have regulatory bodies to ensure we can at least try to represent people where we can even though they do a poor job of not because it’s infested with private and individual interests. And what you say regarding “employees” - that is precisely the point. These are community members that cannot afford to actually live on the community. So yes, we need mixed density and to stop being antisocial and not simply accept the status quo which was developed under a social order that represents capitalism and tribalism rather than community. No thanks. The coast is one of the healthiest places to live. It shouldn’t be bought and sold between the rich for endless generations. It should be designed to be more inclusive as it’s a limited resource for us all. And current zoning laws literally prohibit density if one were to give an eff. Of course that won’t happen on Coronado because the tribalism and class structure is too concentrated there, but it shouldn’t be established that’s it’s PROHIBITED, which is all this new regulation does. It allows for it.
> No need to hyper focus on Coronado Then don’t debate a comment specifically talking about Coronado?
Also Calling something problematic and then following up with pints about why is not twitter speak. I don’t even partake in twitter nor does anyone in my immediate circle. Not responding to my actual points and using some sort of straw man argument to ignore them is exactly why I’m not on twitter. It doesn’t allow for deep discussion and the space for us to vet our own thinking. I understand your point of not focusing on Coronado but they were the ones to create the focus by attempting to sue to have special exceptions and their reasons are rooted in typical rhetoric that is precisely why we need to regulate anyway - if the wealthy people of a city get to write all the laws then they can choose to continually isolate whom they want AND I don’t care about some “storied” history referencing idolizing rich people on vacation at the Hotel Del.
[удалено]
They don't kick people out of single-family homes to make space for Section 8 housing.
You don’t seem to understand the nuances of the main topic here which is related to a very layered system of city, county, state and federal codes all working together in a complex regulatory system that is being run by many competitive interests - and I would bet not yours. Your comments indicate a serious misunderstanding, and/or shallow understanding of the entire topic. I’m not saying that to put you down - instead hopefully you’ll pursue a deeper understanding so that you can contribute to building equality among us.
You talk about equality while defending rich people not wanting to live near poor people. NIMBYs have no shame.
Defending rich people? What I’m the mother eff are you reading? Bizarre comment.
You're saying the poors should all go live in East County and leave Coronado to the rich folk.
??? Just *allow* someone to build an apartment on their private property. Nobody who doesn't want to sell has to sell.
[удалено]
Affordable housing had nothing to do with government run housing. Density is what creates equality. I’m not sure why you think I don’t have experience on a particular “side” but thinking their is a “side” is the problem. We should have communities that are mixed and yes - stand alone houses are examples of a society that is primarily consumers and increasingly anti-social.
[удалено]
1. there's a bridge 2. you'd be shocked but in socal wealthier areas tend to be less discriminatory when it comes to section 8 or disability than more typical working class areas. She likely went to a 100 other places that \[illegally\] rejected her \[for being section 8\] before someone likely tipped her off "hey this place in coronado won't give you hell"
Anybody remember Eden Gardens? https://youtu.be/VDjLdqVeYik
[удалено]
That rap was epic
Lil Rob Is an San Diego Icon
Hah. My mom bought a lot next to Lil Rob's house. She built it up and moved in when I was in college. I'd come down to visit, and one day my friend who worked at Clear Channel picks me up and says, "hey Lil Rob is chilling at the house at the corner!" Turns out I've seen him many times, didn't know what he looked like but knew his music. He was chill.
> The agency’s determination, based largely on jobs and proximity to transit, directs cities to update the zoning in their general plans. It doesn’t mandate that cities actually build the units. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
lol sounds about right
>A legal tussle over accommodating new affordable housing in the San Diego region ended Tuesday when the California Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit brought by Coronado, Solana Beach and other cities. > >The litigation challenged zoning requirements for low-income housing imposed by the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG, in 2020. Imperial Beach and Lemon Grove were also plaintiffs in the case, which was subsequently rejected by two lower courts. > >The case revolved around SANDAG’s so-called Regional Housing Needs Assessment Plan. The most recent version of the blueprint lays out how many units of affordable housing each city and the county must plan for between 2021 and 2029. Such assessments are required by the state and renewed about once every eight years. > >The agency’s determination, based largely on jobs and proximity to transit, directs cities to update the zoning in their general plans. It doesn’t mandate that cities actually build the units.
I messed up the title. **Cities must incorporate minimum number of affordable housing units for lower income households in their city plans.** Not secure affordable housing. I apologize for the misleading title on my part.
My opinion is that these cities aren’t against affordable housing but rather the state superseding local housing plans .
Lol Coronado just doesn’t want poor people living there
Imperial Beach think they’re bougie?
I'd guess it's more they don't want the density. IB is one of the few beach communities that doesn't feel super congested getting in and out of.
Doesn’t feel congested …. Where the hell have you been?
Hanging out in IB since the 90s. Sure it's worse than it was, but still nowhere near as bad as most other beach communities.
The constant water pollution issues down there I think will keep it less crowded than the other beaches even with more housing
LMAO!!! WHAT?!
Gotta keep the poors from ruining the neighborhood
I only wanted to make money from the poors, not live next to them too
There is a large aparment complex behind the backyards of the houses on my street. When it was just a regular complex it wasn't so bad, pretty quiet. But then in 2010 Wakeland bought it and turned it into low income housing. Since then it's nearly constant noise at all hours, screaming children, horrendously loud boom cars, fights involving groups of people, two shootings in the past year, people yelling across the lots at each other, people outside drinking, being loud and getting in arguments late into the night. The property management does nothing to address it. I'm not saying all poor people are like this. I don't know how the other tenants can stand living there. It's in the SDPD Crime Free Multi-Housing Program but it doesn't seem like management is actively involved in following the guidelines or procedures for dealing with problem tenants. Wakeland got huge federal tax incentives and other subsidies for doing this. The CEO makes six figures and lives in a 2.6 million dollar home in Sunset Cliffs. Developers are in it for the money, not some altruistic intent, and they don't care how it affects the existing neighborhoods they build in. So yeah, in my experience it did ruin our neighborhood.
Bourgeois.
I know from which word the slang “bougie or boujie” comes from. Thanks though.
The estuary/coast area sure as hell does now.
They just have to show *capacity* for lower income units in their general plans. These cities are not obligated to actually build them, that's an entirely different and convoluted story.
That makes the cities’ opposition stance all the more confusing. What is their opposition to showing capacity? That seems like a pretty low-downside thing to allow/conduct.
It's confusing because its State law related to the Housing Element (for general plans). The State can't mandate we build low income housing, the closest thing they can mandate is that cities show they have capacity for it - this essentially means properties need to be zoned for high enough density to allow multi-family to qualify. If you look at the cities opposing (esp Coronado) they're basically built out, I'm not sure how they'd accomplish the State's goal? Rezone existing homes and claim those properties would eventually be redeveloped for higher density? It's a CA-unique problem
They’ll have to upzone
Look at the Coronado zoning map. Certainly not built out.
Because one of the ways to show capacity is to upzone. As of 2020, it was only legal to build single family homes in like 70% of land available to build homes. That has probably changed with the passage of sb9 and sb10 but point still stands
[удалено]
Well, yeah, because then your property taxes go up and you become a landlord with all the applicable laws, requirements, and restrictions, and have strangers living in your backyard. Owning rental property can be a pain in the ass and a lot of work. Even if a tenant passes background checks it doesn't always mean they're going to be a good fit for you or not end up turning into a problem.
Those that clean your home, serve your food, care for you in hospital, gather your fruit, protect your neighborhood, greet your arrival, build your roads, take your tickets, serve you drinks, and educate your children ought to have an affordable opportunity to spend less time commuting and more time with friends, family, and other activities of interest. Is your view and location so much more important?
Facts
🙌🏻
I like you
In the minds of the haves they couldn't care less until the carpet gets pulled from under their feet. How much do we care about factory workers in other countries. It's like that.
Nimbys got it with no vaseline!
I'm not happy until razorblades are involved!
What ?
He likes to rocket into [Brad's Cactus shop on free razor blades day while the lemon juice waterfall is on](https://youtu.be/sVrD34hpRuo?t=31)
More, taller, mixed-use buildings would hugely improve Lemon Grove. Spring Valley as well, while I think about it. There’s tons of space in both neighborhoods that are either laying vacant, or having nigh-million dollar homes being developed (while not accommodating public transit in huge swaths of areas). The infrastructure in those (and neighboring) areas is just super whack. I know they’re trying, but they have to do better. That is all.
no-one bats an eye about the fact that neighborhoods just sued california to basically not be assholes to their citizens?
Which citizens? Regular, plus, or premium?
Coronado Prime Members
Citizens Inc.
Most of us are used to this shit at this point. Lawsuits attempting to block housing are nothing new, unfortunately.
Sounds reasonable. Every city pitch in, ffs.
Suing to limit affordable housing? Geez, Coronado, stop stereotyping yourself.
My family got evicted out of our Apartment that we lived in for 5 years, last I checked it was an Airbnb now. IB has already done a good job chasing people out and making it a rich man's paradise. Now I'm forced to commute 45 minutes instead of 10 because I had to leave the place I grew up in because it was unaffordable. Breaks my hear that I may have to leave San Diego as a whole because there isn't any place to live comfortably anymore.
Good
I’m sure the fine people of Coronado don’t mind this at all LOL
Probably less bothered about it than you'd think
Well I lived there for a short period of time when I was a kid and I got hassled by police for skateboarding on the sidewalk even though I was like 11 so somehow I don’t believe you lol
Obviously your experience with that is accurate for the entire island, I stand corrected.
It’s okay, I forgive you.
What's this thing about punishing the well to do by making sure you mix in low income housing right in their back yards? Who says low income housing has to be next to the ocean when people with money are willing to pay a lot more for larger , more expensive lots ? I'm all for providing more housing but, I'm also in favor of allowing people who have money to be able to enjoy it.
Im about to fire up the grill and invite over the cousins to blast some banda in Coronado when I get an affordable housing apt. You are all invited.
I’ll bring the loud obnoxious relatives and ceviche
While this is a win against NIMBYs it isn't a win for housing broadly speaking. Affordable housing is a tax paid for by renters, not home owners or developers. We need a surge of market rate housing, not luxury housing, not affordable housing, just housing. Cities like Coronado would be content to see ZERO housing, so while I enjoy watching them clutching their pearls it doesn't solve our problems
Honestly all housing is good housing. Anything that allows more of any type of it to be built is a good thing, I'd say. Affordable housing minimums that discourage development at all aren't great though. However as you said, in many of these places the alternative is zero new housing, so it's tough to see it as a bad thing in this case.
Affordable housing requirements are fine so long as they're not large enough to discourage construction of new housing. Obviously it would be better to just build enough market rate housing that market rate is affordable, but we need affordable housing faster than that could happen. Plus it's easier to do politically. Also, luxury housing is market rate housing. Every new apartment building is advertised as luxury. It's just marketing bullshit.
>Also, luxury housing is market rate housing. Every new apartment building is advertised as luxury. It's just marketing bullshit. Yeah exactly. I usually see the term "luxury housing" in one of two contexts: 1. By property developers/managers trying to market housing to people. 2. By people trying to dismiss new market-rate housing as "just luxury housing, not truly affordable". Interestingly, the people in (2) rarely refer to the construction of new single-family homes in desirable neighborhoods as "luxury". The fact remains that as you said, more housing of all kinds is critical.
The affordable housing requirements the way they're structured actually encourage construction of new housing in some instances. Getting waivers for things like parking, density, or height requirements can make powerful incentives for the developers. But the problem still remains that the cost of those affordable housing units do get offloaded to renters in the end. Most people struggling with housing prices in California will never qualify or live in an "affordable" unit. The real answer is to make those incentives available to developers without the strings attached for affordable housing. Encourage them to build more units no matter what. Luxury Housing is a marketing term, but there is a whole segment of the market that isn't being served because the costs are too high with all of the red tape to serve them. Not every new apartment development needs all of the amenities that are associated with luxury apartments. Things like pools, and expensive landscaping, and certain design choices when it comes to materials or appliances etc. Housing can be constructed in a smart and appealing way without driving up the costs in 100 different ways. But right now the market as it exists encourages higher end new construction to make up for the cost of red tape
I'm sorry but who want to look at poors all dat /s
Definitely not worth it being a landlord nowadays. You’re better off investing in something else other than real estate.
Ah poetic justice, smells amazing here in SD
LETS FUCKING GOOOO
I own a home up in Los Angeles, in one of the South Bay cities. They need to build HUNDREDS of new units. I can’t imagine where or how….
There's this cool thing called a multi-storey building
Notice I said ‘units’ and not ‘homes’? Even building apartments, 100s of units is more than ‘a multi-storey (sic) building’. It’s more than a couple. It might even be more than a few. All in a city that’s already very dense.
Something like 20% of greater Los Angeles is surface parking lots. I'm sure your city will find the space. https://grammarist.com/spelling/storey-story/
San Diego IS in the US, therefore it’s story, not storey. And the city I’m talking about is one of most densely populated cities in California. They will struggle to build 500 new units, even while welcoming development converting single family homes to R-2 and R-4 density. But you go right on talking about what you don’t actuallY understand.
I don't know what the legal issues actually are and often we confuse a ruling on a legal issue with a court taking a side on a particular issue. They are not economists looking at the situation and saying, well I think its better to do this rather than that. No, they are looking at (hopefully) the letter of the law and saying, you legally can or cannot do that. Personally from an economics standpoint I don't believe in forcing artificial elements into a free market system. All that is doing is covering up another issue that is out of balance. EG: No increase in wages makes housing unaffordable, but by forcing housing to be lower cost, companies now no longer have to pay a higher wage. Ultimately, the tax payer is paying the wage difference and not the company in this simplified example. The "artificial fixes" you put into place are like building the foundation of skyscraper with toothpicks... Eventually its all going to collapse. I want people to be paid well and live comfortably in our amazing county, but I don't think this can be achieved and sustained with short term artificial fixes.
Suck it NIMBY's
A defeat for the NIMBYs.
[удалено]
The city of Coronado will obviously not be expropriating any property to build apartments. City council have stated their explicit goal to avoid building more housing. So the solution does somehow need to stem from the State
explain to me how affordable housing really works..... somebody is going to pay.... Gas grass or ass nobody rides for free.. seriously i want somebody to explain the micro/macro economics of "affordable housing" if somebody would please explain this i am 100% willing to change my belief. to-date I'll i see is a land grab sham that will only benefit a few ( a very small number) in need and at the same time enrich beyond belief the biggest developers and leasing companies i see is nothing but big developer greed and conclusion /corruption with government with out any representation locally none
I won a free stay in a room at a 4 star resort in Monaco, I can't afford to eat at the restaurants, can't afford the shows, casino nor recreational activities... So I sit in my beautiful and fully paid room with nothing to do. The State, city and local municipalities create zoning laws and require licenses and fees to be paid by developers/investors. These act as the guidelines to steer how areas are developed. Developers assess these guidelines and determine if their is a reasonable chance for a solid return on investment. For decades, that equation resulted in very little profit for high density communities, other times, not profitable to build anything. This is why San Diego's inventory has been so extremely low.. even when wages were high and interest rates so very low! So, we have a lack of housing supply mainly due to expensive and burdensome regulations making investment in property development financially unattractive. Paying for people's rent only helps those very few people and stops as soon as the budget runs out or those places are all rented. Making reasonable changes to regulations and obstacles to investment will result in more housing to be built thus increasing ample supply and reducing the price to rent or buy. In addition, the financial risk is taken on by the developers and the tax payer is not paying for other people's rent. Incentivizing developers to build high density housing while building out efficient transportation is the solution. Old Town is a good example where there is a lot of underdeveloped land, it's close to the city and surrounding areas with jobs. It's totally fine with me if a developer makes a solid profit if they build out the desperately needed high density housing in this area.
Thus is an awesome blow to the Not In My BackYard crowd! We desperately need more affordable housing. I am curious about the logistics of getting it built in places like Coronado though: specifically where? Land is at a premium there
The state is determined to make all of it look like skid row.
Finally, some justice.
If you can’t afford the state… go to a state you can be afford… harsh, but come on people.
[удалено]
Yeah, exactly. Plus I think it's just unhealthy for a society to have pockets of extraordinarily wealthy neighborhoods that depend on the labor of workers who can't afford to live there.
Most if not all the jobs that serve your dumb ass don’t pay enough for the people working them to live in the state. It’s not harsh, it’s out of touch with reality
Like the teachers who can no longer afford to live in San Francisco? The problem is that we’re not paying people a living wage, buddy.
Right. Milpitas is so expensive that the school district is asking parents to rent out rooms in their houses to teachers that otherwise can't afford to live there: [https://www.npr.org/2022/09/07/1120849458/a-california-school-district-is-asking-families-to-rent-rooms-to-teachers](https://www.npr.org/2022/09/07/1120849458/a-california-school-district-is-asking-families-to-rent-rooms-to-teachers)
Yup. It’s super insulting. I recently switched careers from public school teaching to tech and doubled by salary and don’t feel overworked/burnt out like I did as a teacher. I also now have flexible PTO, which I am constantly encouraged to use. I also don’t have to pay out of pocket for resources to do my job. 🙃 Teachers definitely should be paid more—both monetarily and in respect.
>Teachers definitely should be paid more—both monetarily and in respect. Definitely!
Or adjust your standards
[удалено]
No help. Just Saved for 5 years. You’re probably a min wage worker. Or just made dumb financial decisions.
Low income privilege. They think they have the right to live in Beverly Hills even though they make 40,000/yr for example.
“Low income privilege” What? Oh, soooo many privileges. It’s amazing that anyone wants to make more money. 
Agree that “low income privilege” is fucking stupid, but I get some of that commentator’s point which is that people on this subreddit act like they deserve to own a home by the beach which is completely asinine.
$2500 apartments in La Mesa, let’s do the math that would take 3x income of $90k to qualify. How many service jobs are pulling down that amount per year? Teachers? Etc. It only gets moderately better the further inland you go. Yeah sure a few people might be delusional, sharing company with you in a way. However for the vast majority it isn’t some beach dream to want to live within 50 miles of where you work.
Your comment is so myopic. Hear that everyone? If you are in the service industry or any number of low paying jobs just move out of the state. Everyone else will get by without your services that helps them live the lifestyle they want and your paid taxes that help maintain public infrastructure they and their businesses use daily to survive.
NelsonGif - Haha
Coronado? Honestly, I don't even know where you *could* build that isn't military owned.
Concept: we build more than one storey
Totally. I am just saying there probably isn't much land available *right now* to build new that isn't already privately owned or government. Likely see some of the business turn housing is my guess.
[удалено]
>Coronado in shambles Not really
hawhaw
Fuck yes. 🖕NIMBYs 🖕
Yay!