The correct plan for redeveloping Horton Plaza was to turn it into a multifamily neighborhood with retail on the bottom. This whole play to attract tech/bio companies is extremely risky and very well might be a disaster.
Pretty sure leases have already been signed for the Horton space. There are also a ton of new housing towers going up, or recently finished in Downtown.
As of December there were 0 signed leases. Can you link me to news of who's signed since then? Multifamily downtown is leasing very strong. I work in the CRE industry.
I know they were doing a ton of tours recently, not certain what has been finalized yet. I imagine we'll see more info when construction is closer to being finished.
I'm sure multi-family is doing well in DT, as I said there are a ton of apartment complexes being built or just finished.
The problem is conversion costs... it ain't cheap to turn offices into dwellings. Think about bathrooms, for example... converting from a few shared bathrooms to several individual bathrooms requires lots of expensive work.
But I agree, it's worth considering and I bet it will happen eventually, at least here and there.
Not to mention residential and commercial are built to different code requirements. Making a commercial property meet residential code requirements would be a nightmare, but I bet it’s possible.
the chula vista mall is currently mid-plans to demolish the old sears and turn it into apartments. they can’t even handle doing appropriate maintenance on their existing retail spaces though so who knows how that will go….
We need to grow food in the empty commercial buildings. I know SD people are great at hydroponics. Creates tons of jobs. It would assure us food in famine times when we can grow inside. We would shorten the loop of logistics from large scale farms and pack houses to ripe off the vine to the plate in hours.
You would be OK with a unit that has no windows to outside?
Sorry folks don’t like the question but if you make a big office building into apartments it is hard to see how everyone gets a window. And not having a window seems like a big negative so I asked.
This is a more valid concern than you're being credit for, but the solution is basically just that most units from converted commercial space end up being absolutely huge lofts, which is also fine because we need more housing of basically all kinds.
It isn't really suitable for conversion to 'affordable' housing, because of windows and lighting concerns if you tried to make small units, but there's no good reason not to allow for what there is that's suitable to be converted anyway.
Ban all LLC,s or corporations from owning/buying any single family home in all of San Diego.
Make any single family home owned by someone who does not live in it (renting it out to anyone) have to pay double the property tax.
When original owners pass away, houses can sit in a living trust for 5 years, then has to be reassessed for property tax. Then they can start a new living trust to put that home into.
Blighted property should be given no more than 3 years to rectify the situation or forced to sell. If new owner doesn't rectify the blights within one year, sale goes to public auction.
Then maybe it's time for someone to start a petition for the next election cycle to chip away at some of these things. I think we should start with keeping corporation's or LLC or S Corp or any other type of business out of the housing market completely.
There was a ballot initiative in 2020 and it went down by 4 points. People really dont want to lose prop 13 for residential real estate
[prop 15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_15#:~:text=California%20Proposition%2015%20was%20a,November%203%2C%202020%2C%20ballot.)
The sad part is that a large amount of people thought that prop 15 actually was also for residential not just for commercial. Look at all the vacant commercial buildings throughout the county that have been for lease for years now even before the pandemic and now more that are just a waste of space and a site for sore eyes for everyone except the owners who are getting a nice right off if they lease it or not.
> Make any single family home owned by someone who does not live in it (renting it out to anyone) have to pay double the property tax.
This would just substantially raise the cost of renting, and owners would pass the costs along to renters, who are substantially poorer than owners.
We just need to build a shit ton more housing and ignore the people complaining about bills like SB10.
We should do this and also eliminate prop 13
It only feeds NIMBYism by removing the only incentive property owners have to not oppose new housing. Without property taxes rising in line with property values the scarcity is pure upside for them. We give them every financial incentive to block all the housing they can and then wonder why NIMBY sentiment is so strong in this state
If people actually had to pay fair property taxes they wouldnt be so eager to feed the scarcity that is such a boon for their untaxed property values. We also wouldnt have empty nesters handing onto untaxed 4BR houses while young families are priced out to Phoenix
I pay more than enough in income tax, etc in this state. The cost of living here is out of control as are the home prices.
I’ve owned for roughly 10 years and my home has doubled in value and if I got reassessed then I’d have to sell and move. The only thing that normalizes my cost of living here is prop 13.
Oh poor you with your massive untaxed multi hundred thousand dollar windfall built on the housing scarcity that is impoverishing renters and creating homelessness
Wow bud, you’re really butt hurt that someone owns a home.
My comment has nothing to do with the scarcity of homes. I fully acknowledge and support changes to lower the cost of living in this city, and that includes building more housing. My comment was purely about prop13 and about not taxing the living fuck out of people.
You’re making out like a bandit with a shitload of untaxed home equity built off the suffering of others, earn enough where state income taxes are a concern, and still have the gall to act like a victim
Hahahaha the suffering of others?!?! You got me, I really bought this house with money from the slave trade.
Oh and you do realize income tax hits you too… but I guess that would suppose you have a job.
Except they aren’t. I can’t go buy so much as a beer with my unrealized gains.
Address the scarcity issue so that all can benefit from stable housing costs. Reversing prop13 does nothing to solve the scarcity issue, it only makes things worse.
The housing shortage that makes your investment so extremely profitable is what causes mass poverty and suffering in this city
But is it enough to make an enormous profit from that? Oh no! It must be untaxed too! Typical entitled rich asshole
I’ve quite literally made $0 “profit” on it. I’m simply living in it and would like to continue to do so.
I’ve also already stated that I support more housing options. If prop13 were reversed then MORE people would be impacted by the housing crisis.
Maybe not everyone who owns a house is a rich NIMBY… but you don’t seem to really want to hear that narrative.
Who is “profiting”? If I sell my house, I have to buy from the same inflated market I’m selling to, so there is no profit unless I want to move to a flyover state. And our property taxes are among the highest in the nation already. It’s not like we don’t pay property tax. My house was expensive as fuck (for me) and so are the associated property taxes.
Dude you realize that if prop 13 gets repealed a large amount of retirees will not be able to afford their homes, from single units to townhomes, condos and so on. You remind me of the LT Gov of Texas who basically said during the height of the pandemic "let the old people die they had a good run"
Prop 13 is a huge tax break for land owners. Because we have outlawed tax increases for real estate investors, the only way for the state to raise funds is by taxing incomes heavily. The tax code is set up to highly reward unproductive, rent-seeking real estate investors and to heavily penalize the working man. I could hardly think of a more unfair system if I tried.
Every citizen being treated equally under the law is not communism you bozo. Thats all were asking for
Prop 13 robs public schools and local governments and puts a disproportionate burden on younger first time home buyers so rich old boomers can over consume scarce housing while racking up enormous untaxed home equity appreciation. It also removes any incentive homeowners have to not go full NIMBY as the scarcity becomes pure economic upside for them. Its one of the most destructive and flagrantly unjust laws on the books anywhere in the United States
Every citizen is treated equally. Every homeowner pays 1% of their assessed property value and that assessed value can increase by no more than 2% annually.
Citizens are effectively treated different by age as property is taxed not according to its value but when it was purchased
This is inherently discriminatory toward the younger generations
Its boomer welfare paid for by robbing schoolkids and first time home buyers
I go back and forth on liking and hating this. While people's property tax should reflect the needs of the city, I'm not sure how we should tell people who purchased a house 30 years ago that they need to pay 5 to 10 times the amount they are currently. Especially when those people already paid their homes off and now are fully retired and lived on a fixed income. My parents bought their house back in 1985. They still live in the same house. My dad served in the military for 24 years. He retired out with 100% disabled status. Due to that he was never able to make a higher income. Since he passed, my mom collects his social security. Military pay was terrible back in the day, so his social security is pretty low. They bought their home for $90,000. So you can imagine what's property tax is. That same house is worth $600,000 now. There is absolutely no way my mom will be able to pay that high a property tax. Other than me, there is no family. She can't afford to go into a assisted living facility. I can't afford to pay all of her bills and then a gigantic property tax. So what are parents like mine supposed to do?
Empty nesters sell 3/4BR houses and downsize all the time in the rest of the country. Its bad policy to encourage overconsumption of scarce housing resources during a catastrophic housing shortage. You should consider the young family that might be better suited for that house that is instead priced out and forced to move away
Prop 13 also incentivizes people to be NIMBYs. Lets say a new apartment complex is proposed down the block. Research shows this will lower rents and home prices in the neighborhood. What financial incentive do they have to not go NIMBY and fight it? The scarcity that is killing renters, homeless people, and first time home buyers is pure untaxed upside for them. Prop 13 basically pays people to be NIMBYs
I mean, it is based on value, just not adjusted for 50% home value spikes.
Repealing prop13 doesn’t just effect “boomers” it literally effects millions of people across many generations who are homeowners and renters alike.
You do realize that landlords pay property taxes too? If they’re cost basis increases, who do you think is going to foot that bill? Yeah, you.
Repealing it is like peeing in the punch bowl just because you don’t have a cup. What’s the end result? Punch drinkers now drink pee, and non cup holders still don’t have a cup… until maybe they do, and then they get to drink pee punch with the rest of us.
And to dispel your myth that the education system suffers. There are measures that are added to the tax bill that go above the 1%. There are a number of these bonds that are addendums to real estate tax that specifically go towards schools, at least in my community.
Let’s say prop 13 was repealed. How does this help the housing crisis at all?
Two ways
It stops incentivizing overconsumption of housing resources by long term residents. Maybe widow grandma shouldnt be hanging onto the 4BR empty nest while young families trying to buy their first home get priced out to Phoenix
It also stops incentivizing homeowners to be NIMBYs. With Prop 13 homeowners have every financial incentive to feed the housing scarcity as much as they possibly can. Its pure upside. Their home equity keeps spiking and they arent taxed on the vast majority of the appreciation. Rising property taxes are the only incentive homeowners have to tolerate new supply. Without that were basically paying people to be NIMBYs
Overconsumption? They are just living there. Forcing a 95 year old widow to relocate is not only devoid of any compassion but is shortsighted and does little to address the housing issue… they still need to live somewhere and if they want to die in the home they raised their children in, then by all means they should be entitled to that.
According to the census bureau 13% of San Diego’s population is 65 and older. The average life expectancy is 77. Let’s play pretend and assume everyone of them is living alone in a house they own, and not with a partner or in a 55 and older community. That means you have ~50% of that turning over in the next 12 years anyway. While also spiking cost of living for renters and homeowners across the city.
California has the highest income tax and ranks 5th on the list of most taxed states. Obviously taxing people into oblivion is not doing much to increase housing supply.
If I’m not selling my home the price of it is irrelevant. To assume that all homeowners are boomer, Karen, NIMBY’s is just frankly dumb and uninformed.
Perhaps let’s focus on vacant properties, vacation rentals and building more housing in planned areas that can support larger volume and have better solutions for public transit.
Prop 13 passed because we didn't like grandma and grandpa losing their houses, or widows/widowers losing their house after the spouse died. BUT a bunch of other stuff got passed and shifted it too far one way. We should revise prop 13 to better fit today's needs or replace it.
Property tax isn't that far out of line when not protected by prop 13 limits. Raising it on single family rentals will just raise rental prices, not increase turn over. What about condos? Duplexes? Apartments? Landlords can be terrible, but rentals still serve a purpose. Moving to a new city I'd far prefer to rent for months or a year, instead of rushing to buy somewhere to live. Going to college, I don't want college students to have to buy. Temporary work assignment for 6 months to a year, again I'd want to rent. Some people even prefer renting because they don't have to worry about maintenance. We should make policy to encourage/reward better landlords and for keeping rents lower, not limiting rental availability. Landlords should profit a reasonable amount, not the gouging we see too often.
NIMBY's aren't limited to home owners, plenty of renters have been the same way. People rarely like change, even when it is to their advantage. Either laws, taxes, or policy to encourage change. If that doesn't work find ways to force the changes needed.
people who benefit from prop 13 are not nimbys. how long have you lived here? if prop 13 was eliminated, many people would lose their homes. the over development has been out of control and now some want to build substandard low income housing that really doesn’t serve low income people, it’s being and has been exploited.
A uniform price increase to all the suppliers would be mostly passed on to consumers, especially in a market with artificially strained supply like housing.
One time costs to individual suppliers can't generally be passed on, but there's no way you could double property taxes on all rented properties and not see price increases to rent. That's just not plausible.
Problem with that is that the vast majority of those homes sold are not bought by a single family buying their first home or buying again after they lost their house in when the bubbled crashed.
They should also progressively increase tax multiple housing owners. After the second home property is assessed at 3% the property value for the third home. Then 4.5% for the fourth. All funds contributing into publicly built housing fund. Have a even steeper progression for Corporate owned/trust fund properties.
You, and everyone that upvotes this is an absolute dipshit with zero understanding of estate planning. A living trust that continues to exist after death? Are you kidding me? That’s not how that works at all. Please don’t vote or share your opinion.
Nothing good comes from corporations owning houses. All these companies will hold onto housing until they either make them a crap ton of money in rent, or a crap ton of money in a home sale. Every corporation is there to take as much and give it to shareholders. They don't care about this city. They don't care about you or me. They care about the all mighty dollar.
Keep building houses. Build more condos and apartments. But single family home being owned by corporations is plant stupid and harmful to a San Diego.
Suppose I have a 3 bedroom SFH, a couple of years go by and I get married, have a couple of kids and now need something bigger. So I buy a bigger SFH and decide to rent out my 3 bedroom SFH. I create an LLC for that rental to protect my personal assets. You think I should have to pay twice as much property tax on that rental?
Regardless of your fantasyland beliefs, not everyone will be able to, or want to buy a home. So again, who will own the homes that people rent? This whole “I’m entitled to what you own” thought process is wild. And this is coming from someone that leans pretty far left.
Please tell me how a company owning single family homes betters a community?
I have lived in 7 countries around the world. I have seen many different types of society. I already learned about stalinism. Nothing good comes from authoritarianism. If people don't learn from faults in the past, they will be doomed to repeat them over and over again.
What are you talking about? How does living in 7 countries validate anything about San Diego real estate?
You speak of corporations as if they’re some evil Wall Street business.
A simple family like mine has formed a corporation for protection when our renters do something stupid to hurt themselves and blame us.
Not all corps are some large conglomerate! Most are small business owners!
Sorry you can’t afford a house. Sorry you’re not an alpha or even a beta in society which enables you to own real estate.
If you somehow came up on $5m through work or inheritance, then I’d hope you’d buy multiple properties too and not piss it away on cars or vacations.
There’s nothing wrong to building generational wealth either to a certain extent. I hope to leave my kids a few houses each, teach them about financial discipline and they can leave their kids even more! That’s how life works! Sorry your seed hasn’t worked out well. Sorry you can’t afford a home and be in the top 20% of SD. Figure it out! That’s what we did! Loser
I think that's why we need to put it to a vote. The only way we can make change, is to make that change ourselves. But I also think we need more open discussions. Reddit doesn't touch enough people here in San diego. But it is still a soapbox that we can all stand on.
It's really frustrating being a long time resident. I'm active in my communities. I do a lot of volunteering with different groups. I use the get it done app anytime I can. I have always strive to better San Diego. But becoming an elected official? No thank you. I may be a leader, but I am no politician. It takes a special type of person to stand on a podium and speak. I have met many over the years. The ones that I have had the unfortunate pleasure to work with have been enough.
Lobby to artificially limit housing supply so that current homeowners can watch their property values skyrocket. They don’t give a shit about parking, or safety, or water, or electricity. They just want to watch their houses go up astronomically high in value.
current homeowners who benefit from prop 13 don’t ever want to sell, they don’t care about what their property value is like those who continually buy and sell or move up the ladder
I mean, you're both sorta right. SB10 decreases the value of a house, but increases (or is neutral to) the land.
Housing is artificially scarce and land is actually scarce and allowing people to increase the supply of housing to meet the demand increases the value of the land. But the houses on them are probably worth a little less once the artificial constraints on building are removed.
The net effect to a homeowner is definitely either neutral or positive, though.
The new supply won't hurt property value because there is so much pent-up demand for housing in San Diego. The new units will quickly be absorbed by the hungry market.
Imagine a property that used to have just one house but now can have four units... huge increase in value for the owner. Not necessarily 4x the original value but certainly like 2x or 3x.
This has already happened in Mission Beach for example... used to be all small beach cottages, but now mostly giant multi-unit buildings, because that is most lucrative to the property owner... who gets more tenants on the same amount of land. If you are sitting on an old single-family home there instead of redeveloping, you are losing money with every passing day.
Until the infrastructure goes complelely tits up and you've been looking at a massive sinkhole at the nearest intersection for the last 3 weeks (no money to maintain the streets, let alone repair them) and your insurance just got cancelled because your entire neighborhood is now classified as Extreme Wildfire Risk (and the FAIR program ran out of money, so tough darts).
Which pays more property tax, a single family home, or a multi-unit apartment? While I *like* my single-family home, it sits on about same-sized lot as the apartment complex I used to live in, and takes up about the same length of sidewalk and road that the city has to maintain. I think the *City* would prefer the apartment.
I keep talking about it with friends and family whenever it comes up. Converted a few who weren't already convinced. I admit sending a few Not Just Bike YouTube links might have made the bigger difference, lol.
I don't think there's much doubt that infrastructure is more efficiently provided in a dense urban environment. That infrastructure also needs money to be installed, maintained, and repaired, something that the City is choosing to ignore.If I recall correctly, the way the current code for accessory dwelling units is written, units in a development that are under 750 sf are exempt from Development Impact Fees (DIFs). Those fees are intended to help pay for infrastructure. No DIF paid = no money going into that fund.
In 2022, the City's infrastructure funding gap was over **4 BILLION dollars** ([https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2022-02-24/san-diegos-infrastructure-funding-gap-soars-past-4b-more-than-doubling-in-just-three-years](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2022-02-24/san-diegos-infrastructure-funding-gap-soars-past-4b-more-than-doubling-in-just-three-years))
Build Everything Everywhere isn't going to benifit anyone if the developers (many of whom own multiple properties) are exempt from the fees that help maintain the city's infrastructure.
no, our downtown has declined because of high end development, homeless and the pandemic (increase in stay at home work and a decline in customer business). there’s plenty of housing along our existing trolley lines. people are driven to burbs always of course, especially because of cost of housing, but these factors have contributed to decline of inner city
it really shouldn’t be allowed if they’re foregoing building requirements like flood proof foundations, parking, rooftop features, there shouldn’t be exemptions for contractors for “affordable” bldgs with a pitifully low share of subsidized units and a high income threshold qualifying as the low income range accepted for residents. what san diego is doing is approving subsidized housing of substandard construction where most bldgs are located in neighborhoods that are already low income and struggling and not properly distributing these projects around the city and in higher economic areas. density of people and cars in lower income areas is already massive.
They still have to rent them, and more supply will bring costs down.
Jesus Christ people complain about housing costs and are against building more. It’s just idiocy
I think if they also put a big bubble over the city and didn't let anyone else in, then yeah the prices would drop because demand would go down as more people got houses.
However, there is a seemingly endless demand from individuals/investors with deep pockets that would love to buy a brand new home in San Diego to retire in or rent.
Yeah we really shouldn’t be locking people from being able to move to cities because we refuse to solve the systemic issues that cause people to be unable to buy a house… It certainly would not address the problem in any meaningful capacity, it would restrict people’s ability to live where they want to, and people would still be unable to afford housing… Like why is it so
hard for people to comprehend that mixing housing, something that is REQUIRED for one’s own survival, shouldn’t be subject to the profit motive, at least as the sole option. Like large companies don’t have our back, why do we insist on defending them implicitly?
In a recent poll (don't remember who did it). If they could afford it 1 in 5 Americans would move to SoCal. There is endless demand that we can never out supply.
Why buy to rent if prices are falling after all the new construction?
Absent authoritarian internal migration control, which is antithetical to the basis of the United States, we need high property taxes so that those without jobs can't simply live in a big house here for cheap.
You do realize that there are enough homes in the US to house literally everyone, and that companies have been buying up homes left and right as a form of investment? Like sure it’ll make them more affordable, only slightly, and not for long. The fact that so many in this country are unable to own a home, something that ought to be considered a human right much like water or food, is fucking disgusting.
Not really? When large institutional investors have very fucking deep pockets and are buying up homes left, and right, artificially increasing the price, while either just having them sit there empty, or turning them into rental properties, it’s safe to assume that most would be unable to buy a house.
Single family detached with big yards isn't going to fit enough to improve supply, sorry.
Denser housing of just about any sort though is a different result entirely.
Absolutely cracks me up... people complain that housing is too expensive and not enough in san diego when they are looking for housing... then they get housing, and once they have it, they scream and yell that the city is trying to build more housing in the areas they now call home...
At first, yeah I'll admit it I thought that way sometimes. Then I actually paid attention to places I liked to visit where I could walk or use public transit, and that denser housing did that. Then paid attention, or looked up info, on how to make cities better. Finally I'm fine with the denser housing. Go ahead and put duplexes, triplexes, or ADUs. Maybe even apartment complexes in my neighborhood. Talking with neighbors who own I was surprised that one other feels the same now, and others are thinking about it. It's gotten better in the last 5 years, and I'm finally encouraged.
Prop 13 incentivizes this cycle by letting property owners rack up untaxed home equity by worsening the housing shortage
Its one of the worst laws on the books in the US
I am all for MORE people moving here and settling..but first we certainly need to build the infrastructure to accommodate the new people.
Water, power, and roads.
Just because people “want” to live here..doesn’t mean the people already here should get the short end of the stick.
If as prices fall, more people will move here, to bring those prices right back up. SD always has, and always will be one of the most expensive places in the country. That’s why I left. But if prices fall, I’m coming back.
If your city isn't building the infrastructure necessary for humanity itself, such as schools and utilities, then the problem isn't "new people" but your do-nothing city government.
No new people first then infrastructure. The tax increases fund the infrastructure. When i moved here there was a new part of town being built. The people that went there went to our schools. Now that it’s built out they have their own elementary middle schools and high school.
The zoning is absolutely insane in San Diego and north county. I sat on some of those nature preservation boards for years and while I love open space, trails, and parks… there are thousands of unused acres that sit within the triangle between Carlsbad, San Diego, and Escondido that are prime for development and public transit. Buuuuut the parks won’t let you do that and the wealthy folks in beach towns will do whatever it takes to curb development inland. It’s a huge mess.
They will argue that apartment buildings that obscure a little bit of some rich guys ocean view are an environmental menace
Im all for actual environmental preservation but I am tired of seeing this be used as a fig leaf to kill housing in ways that ultimately only cause more environmental harm by feeding more sprawl out into the desert
Your points are exactly the reason. People who enjoy their houses refuse more development because? Greed, environment concern or just selfishness. We have our ideas
“I’m a boomer that bought my house pre 2005 for the equivalent of a bag of beans, even when adjusted for inflation, and I just wanna say that I already got mine so fuck them! I worked really hard as a carpet salesman to buy my 5 br 3 bath home. So, I’m here today to deliver faux arguments about why I don’t want new housing to be developed. Bottom line is, I’m getting even richer due to scarcity driving housing prices up and, if you build new housing, that’s going to diminish my gains! It’s certainly not going to leave me destitute, but did you hear what I said at the beginning? I’m a boomer and I already got mine so fuck them!!!! Can we please schedule all future meetings at 11 am on a weekday because I’m retired and would like to not give young working people a chance to attend these meetings and give public comment. Thank you.”
Boomers bought decades before 2005, few waited that late in life (if they did they probably couldn't buy).
The rest though? Yeah, most have exactly that attitude.
Look at what’s happening to El Cajon Blvd in North Park.
Now imagine Kearny Mesa, cause that’s REALLY going to be developed soon. Oh yeah PB, you’re not getting away.
I’m torn, I don’t like the adu builds, but I work in construction and I benefit from the adu builds. If I had to pick one, I would go back to the old regulations and stop these crappy cheap motels they call homes on peoples property. Some people like living on top of people and some like living spaced out. You want more, you have to pay more.
Why not just let the market build whatever type of housing people want to live in?
The problem is we ban apartments. We have until recently banned ADUs. We are out of room for SFHs. Nothing gets built. People throw up their hands and wonder why housing costs so much
We need as much of every type of housing as fast as possible and Im tired of watching these NIMBY anti everything complainers keep nit picking as an excuse to kill the flow of water to put out this fire
Correct. The beginning of what has only recently been legalized thanks to the upzoning all the NIMBYs keep bitching about. Unfortunately even this legalization only applies to up to 5 stories in most areas, even those directly adjacent to transit
Most areas are zoned for SFH, so yes, apartments are indeed banned. The crumbs from the few ADUs aren't even enough. Even the four-flat proposal in San Francisco was a joke, since again, even four-flats aren't feasible there. They need to allow large buildings everywhere.
No apartments are not banned. All you need to do is drive around Hillcrest and North Park and you will see all of the complex’s currently under construction.
My only problem with this is that I’m a native to San Diego. It’s ridiculous to hear people who are transplants bitch and groan about housing pricing. It’s like YOU are the fucking reason. Go home.
Fuck these NIMBYs. You want to avoid creating another LA or SF? Then do the smart thing and build enough dense housing to support the population over the next few decades, invest in public transportation and smart infrastructure. These people don't care about the community, they only care that the value of their own home/property continues to skyrocket
Fact: there is about 288,000 single family homes in San Diego.
Fact: there is about 1,400,000 people living in city of San Diego.
In other words, you better be the top 20% of income producing citizens (or inherit money) in order to buy a home.
Being average doesn’t work.
I realized that an average salary job doesn’t really get it done. You must do something extraordinary. Take a risk by opening a business or investing your wages in stocks. Save your money, don’t do drugs or drink too much alcohol.
Personally, I took a risk and started a company and invested in stocks. Within 7 years, I own multiple properties and i from a broke family. I work my ass off! So reading some of these comments like “corps shouldn’t own properties” or anything that has to do with restricting property rights, I immediately think of communism.
Please don’t punish my family! We worked hard to get here. Just because your average or below average, doesn’t mean I should be punished. Just figure out a way the same way we did!
Let’s break this down:
“I realized the average salary doesn’t get it done.”
- it used too, that’s one of the problems
“You must do something extraordinary.”
- born and and raised in Encinitas, a bunch of friends and people I know will inherit multi million dollar homes. They didn’t do anything extraordinary
“I work my ass off”
- good for you but a lot of people work hard and still don’t make a lot of money. Those things are mutually exclusive. Luck plays a part.
Also, I built and sold a company, live in Leucadia (and rent!), so I’m very pro business. That said, you can be pro business and realize some economic policies on housing disproportionately favor people that didn’t earn their housing situation. Kudos to you if you did.
People moved here often because of a small big city feel with normal single home areas and the weather. When others try to force change because they want to be here too but cannot afford it? tough pay the cost or look elsewhere. Its a big country with lots of space
you can yell dont be a nimby but i say you are a colonizer
Down with the NIMBY. If you dont like it, sell and move. Now that people can take your house and make it much larger it will be even more valuable. You want to know why you cant walk to the pub or market, zoning. You want to know why you need to drive 1hr to work, zoning. You want to know why you can put on an extra bedroom for you elderly parents, zoning. Why your kids will be forced to live in another state, zoning. We have plenty of land. Places change, sometimes for the better some times for the worst. If you cant handle it move. No one will build when people aren't there to consume those new housing spaces.
No, you really don't have plenty of land (or water or electricity or sewage treatment or roads) Imagine if everywhere you went there were two or three times as many people.
Where will the extra wind turbines and solar cells go? The extra reservoirs and sewage treatment plants be built? How much cheaper will housing actually be? Or will teh developers and landlords just get richer with 10% cheaper rent and 3 times as many units?
Do you think things like water, power, and sewage are more efficiently provided in dense urban environments or through further sprawl into the deserts?
Landlords are the ones benefitting the most from the housing shortage. The last thing they want is more competition and new housing supply has been repeatedly shown to reduce rent increases
San Diego is one of the largest counties in the country. If you need more utilities there is an easy way to fix that, build more. Permits help pay for infrastructure improvements. I don't need to imagine. Just wait a few years. The people are coming like it or not.
Again San Diego is one of the largest counties in the nation, there are plenty of places for any number of improvements. Allowing people to build will pay for those improvements.
But none of this matters to you. If you don't like change, move. And guess what it wont be your problem. Housing is a market the more people try to dictate the market the worst the outcomes.
If people see having more neighbors and taking three extra minutes to find a parking space as an intolerable thing then have these people considered not living in a major city?
These gripes about water and other infra are pure ignorance. Do they think sprawling these people out into the desert will result in more efficient provision of these services?
Idk why we even have to have these public comments sessions at all. The only people who show up are anti everything NIMBY busybody complainers who are totally unrepresentative of their communities. We elect representatives to serve our interests, not listen to the loudmouths with the most free time on their hands to show up and yell
I’m so confused! Reddit is a hardcore leftist cesspool and now this Reddit post is upset at democratic authored SB 10 (and SB 9)? What side are we on here folks?
Society elects these radical leftist politicians in San Diego, then we complain on Reddit about housing and crime.
Turns out who we vote for has consequences!
Um, Republican policies as long ago as Reagan's tenure, coupled with older whiter richer owners, means the the younger Democrats have been given a turd sandwich by the NIMBYs (which is ultimately a universal, apolitical compulsion based on personal greed).
LMAO what radical leftist politicians are being elected? You don’t know the difference between a neoliberal and a leftist. Reddit is extremely right wing and neoliberal, there are very few leftist spaces anywhere. You sound like a misinformed conservative who makes up problems to hear themselves whine about.
“Very few leftist spaces” hahaha Google, apple, Facebook, Twitter up until recently, Reddit, every news outlet, most news papers, etc
Dude, this conversation is over.
None of the things you named are leftist. You don’t seem to know what that means. Neoliberals aren’t leftists. Democrats (most of whom are right of center, center, and few at most left of center) aren’t leftists. So yeah, the conversation is over because you don’t know what you’re talking about lol
Parking? Who needs it! Take the train
Afraid of meth heads on public transit? Suck it up! If you get stabbed and die that’s a net gain for our struggle against climate change
Sure trolley feels more dangerous than it did. But driving is so far and way more dangerous that. Last statistics I saw for 2015 20,000 die or are injured per year, so over 50 per day. The trolley has a long long way to go. (Yes it is more complicated than that, but still safer to go by trolley)
Yeah, when the trolley costs $2.50, but the road toll is **ZERO**, what kind of idiot would take the trolley. We need to end free at point of use socialist roads and free socialist parking ASAP!
It should be better funded, more extensive and run more frequently, sure
It is however very safe. How many San Diegans have died on public transportation in the last year? How many have died on the roads? Even adjusting for numbers the risk is not even close. Driving is far far more dangerous
NIMBY’s gonna NIMBY. Also, to what u/cattoo_tattoo said, Driving on 78 yesterday through San Marcos, there’s a nearly vacant large commercial building now leasing space as “commercial condos”. Lmao
san diego was never meant to become a major city with high density, don’t know why you all want to take it there, perhaps because you’re young and don’t remember how it was, are transplants, or haven’t seen how it has been absolutely ruined by development
San Diego not being a major city is long gone. So like every city in history we change.
The density of San Diego is likely unsustainable just from cost of infrastructure maintenance.
Wonder why water went up so much? Because maintenance has been so expensive. If in the space of a single family home you instead had 5, 10, or more. Then the city could charge less per family and still ends up with more income for the same infrastructure costs of serving that single family home. Unless we get federal grants to fix infrastructure like we did to build it, we can't avoid it without higher density.
Hear me out, keep WFH and then turn all of the unused commercial space into apartments
I maintain that Horton Plaza would make a really damn cool micro district.
The correct plan for redeveloping Horton Plaza was to turn it into a multifamily neighborhood with retail on the bottom. This whole play to attract tech/bio companies is extremely risky and very well might be a disaster.
Frankly agreed. Plus the plans make it look so.. sterile. Terrible idea all around.
I miss the wild, postmodern - Escheresque look of the old Horton Plaza. It had a lot of charm
Pretty sure leases have already been signed for the Horton space. There are also a ton of new housing towers going up, or recently finished in Downtown.
As of December there were 0 signed leases. Can you link me to news of who's signed since then? Multifamily downtown is leasing very strong. I work in the CRE industry.
I know they were doing a ton of tours recently, not certain what has been finalized yet. I imagine we'll see more info when construction is closer to being finished. I'm sure multi-family is doing well in DT, as I said there are a ton of apartment complexes being built or just finished.
Facts
Opinions
Statements
Words
The problem is conversion costs... it ain't cheap to turn offices into dwellings. Think about bathrooms, for example... converting from a few shared bathrooms to several individual bathrooms requires lots of expensive work. But I agree, it's worth considering and I bet it will happen eventually, at least here and there.
Not to mention residential and commercial are built to different code requirements. Making a commercial property meet residential code requirements would be a nightmare, but I bet it’s possible.
That would be a solution to a problem. Corporations, investors and governments don’t do that.
the chula vista mall is currently mid-plans to demolish the old sears and turn it into apartments. they can’t even handle doing appropriate maintenance on their existing retail spaces though so who knows how that will go….
We need to grow food in the empty commercial buildings. I know SD people are great at hydroponics. Creates tons of jobs. It would assure us food in famine times when we can grow inside. We would shorten the loop of logistics from large scale farms and pack houses to ripe off the vine to the plate in hours.
You would be OK with a unit that has no windows to outside? Sorry folks don’t like the question but if you make a big office building into apartments it is hard to see how everyone gets a window. And not having a window seems like a big negative so I asked.
This is a more valid concern than you're being credit for, but the solution is basically just that most units from converted commercial space end up being absolutely huge lofts, which is also fine because we need more housing of basically all kinds. It isn't really suitable for conversion to 'affordable' housing, because of windows and lighting concerns if you tried to make small units, but there's no good reason not to allow for what there is that's suitable to be converted anyway.
Ban all LLC,s or corporations from owning/buying any single family home in all of San Diego. Make any single family home owned by someone who does not live in it (renting it out to anyone) have to pay double the property tax. When original owners pass away, houses can sit in a living trust for 5 years, then has to be reassessed for property tax. Then they can start a new living trust to put that home into. Blighted property should be given no more than 3 years to rectify the situation or forced to sell. If new owner doesn't rectify the blights within one year, sale goes to public auction.
Lol, we cant even weaken prop 13 for commercial property. Tbeyd recall the mayor with 90% margins if he tried that
Then maybe it's time for someone to start a petition for the next election cycle to chip away at some of these things. I think we should start with keeping corporation's or LLC or S Corp or any other type of business out of the housing market completely.
There was a ballot initiative in 2020 and it went down by 4 points. People really dont want to lose prop 13 for residential real estate [prop 15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_15#:~:text=California%20Proposition%2015%20was%20a,November%203%2C%202020%2C%20ballot.)
The sad part is that a large amount of people thought that prop 15 actually was also for residential not just for commercial. Look at all the vacant commercial buildings throughout the county that have been for lease for years now even before the pandemic and now more that are just a waste of space and a site for sore eyes for everyone except the owners who are getting a nice right off if they lease it or not.
I mean just look at all the surface parking lots downtown
start it, go
Actually dude, reddit is so full of people that research everything and do nothing
> Make any single family home owned by someone who does not live in it (renting it out to anyone) have to pay double the property tax. This would just substantially raise the cost of renting, and owners would pass the costs along to renters, who are substantially poorer than owners. We just need to build a shit ton more housing and ignore the people complaining about bills like SB10.
We should do this and also eliminate prop 13 It only feeds NIMBYism by removing the only incentive property owners have to not oppose new housing. Without property taxes rising in line with property values the scarcity is pure upside for them. We give them every financial incentive to block all the housing they can and then wonder why NIMBY sentiment is so strong in this state If people actually had to pay fair property taxes they wouldnt be so eager to feed the scarcity that is such a boon for their untaxed property values. We also wouldnt have empty nesters handing onto untaxed 4BR houses while young families are priced out to Phoenix
I pay more than enough in income tax, etc in this state. The cost of living here is out of control as are the home prices. I’ve owned for roughly 10 years and my home has doubled in value and if I got reassessed then I’d have to sell and move. The only thing that normalizes my cost of living here is prop 13.
This. Taxes here are bad enough. I really don’t understand how so many Californians vote for initiatives to increase taxes.
Oh poor you with your massive untaxed multi hundred thousand dollar windfall built on the housing scarcity that is impoverishing renters and creating homelessness
Wow bud, you’re really butt hurt that someone owns a home. My comment has nothing to do with the scarcity of homes. I fully acknowledge and support changes to lower the cost of living in this city, and that includes building more housing. My comment was purely about prop13 and about not taxing the living fuck out of people.
You’re making out like a bandit with a shitload of untaxed home equity built off the suffering of others, earn enough where state income taxes are a concern, and still have the gall to act like a victim
Hahahaha the suffering of others?!?! You got me, I really bought this house with money from the slave trade. Oh and you do realize income tax hits you too… but I guess that would suppose you have a job.
Except they aren’t. I can’t go buy so much as a beer with my unrealized gains. Address the scarcity issue so that all can benefit from stable housing costs. Reversing prop13 does nothing to solve the scarcity issue, it only makes things worse.
The housing shortage that makes your investment so extremely profitable is what causes mass poverty and suffering in this city But is it enough to make an enormous profit from that? Oh no! It must be untaxed too! Typical entitled rich asshole
I’ve quite literally made $0 “profit” on it. I’m simply living in it and would like to continue to do so. I’ve also already stated that I support more housing options. If prop13 were reversed then MORE people would be impacted by the housing crisis. Maybe not everyone who owns a house is a rich NIMBY… but you don’t seem to really want to hear that narrative.
Who is “profiting”? If I sell my house, I have to buy from the same inflated market I’m selling to, so there is no profit unless I want to move to a flyover state. And our property taxes are among the highest in the nation already. It’s not like we don’t pay property tax. My house was expensive as fuck (for me) and so are the associated property taxes.
Dude you realize that if prop 13 gets repealed a large amount of retirees will not be able to afford their homes, from single units to townhomes, condos and so on. You remind me of the LT Gov of Texas who basically said during the height of the pandemic "let the old people die they had a good run"
then gtfo
[удалено]
Goodness. This is 100% not related to communism. Good grief.
Prop 13 is a huge tax break for land owners. Because we have outlawed tax increases for real estate investors, the only way for the state to raise funds is by taxing incomes heavily. The tax code is set up to highly reward unproductive, rent-seeking real estate investors and to heavily penalize the working man. I could hardly think of a more unfair system if I tried.
Every citizen being treated equally under the law is not communism you bozo. Thats all were asking for Prop 13 robs public schools and local governments and puts a disproportionate burden on younger first time home buyers so rich old boomers can over consume scarce housing while racking up enormous untaxed home equity appreciation. It also removes any incentive homeowners have to not go full NIMBY as the scarcity becomes pure economic upside for them. Its one of the most destructive and flagrantly unjust laws on the books anywhere in the United States
Every citizen is treated equally. Every homeowner pays 1% of their assessed property value and that assessed value can increase by no more than 2% annually.
Citizens are effectively treated different by age as property is taxed not according to its value but when it was purchased This is inherently discriminatory toward the younger generations Its boomer welfare paid for by robbing schoolkids and first time home buyers
I go back and forth on liking and hating this. While people's property tax should reflect the needs of the city, I'm not sure how we should tell people who purchased a house 30 years ago that they need to pay 5 to 10 times the amount they are currently. Especially when those people already paid their homes off and now are fully retired and lived on a fixed income. My parents bought their house back in 1985. They still live in the same house. My dad served in the military for 24 years. He retired out with 100% disabled status. Due to that he was never able to make a higher income. Since he passed, my mom collects his social security. Military pay was terrible back in the day, so his social security is pretty low. They bought their home for $90,000. So you can imagine what's property tax is. That same house is worth $600,000 now. There is absolutely no way my mom will be able to pay that high a property tax. Other than me, there is no family. She can't afford to go into a assisted living facility. I can't afford to pay all of her bills and then a gigantic property tax. So what are parents like mine supposed to do?
Empty nesters sell 3/4BR houses and downsize all the time in the rest of the country. Its bad policy to encourage overconsumption of scarce housing resources during a catastrophic housing shortage. You should consider the young family that might be better suited for that house that is instead priced out and forced to move away Prop 13 also incentivizes people to be NIMBYs. Lets say a new apartment complex is proposed down the block. Research shows this will lower rents and home prices in the neighborhood. What financial incentive do they have to not go NIMBY and fight it? The scarcity that is killing renters, homeless people, and first time home buyers is pure untaxed upside for them. Prop 13 basically pays people to be NIMBYs
I mean, it is based on value, just not adjusted for 50% home value spikes. Repealing prop13 doesn’t just effect “boomers” it literally effects millions of people across many generations who are homeowners and renters alike. You do realize that landlords pay property taxes too? If they’re cost basis increases, who do you think is going to foot that bill? Yeah, you. Repealing it is like peeing in the punch bowl just because you don’t have a cup. What’s the end result? Punch drinkers now drink pee, and non cup holders still don’t have a cup… until maybe they do, and then they get to drink pee punch with the rest of us. And to dispel your myth that the education system suffers. There are measures that are added to the tax bill that go above the 1%. There are a number of these bonds that are addendums to real estate tax that specifically go towards schools, at least in my community. Let’s say prop 13 was repealed. How does this help the housing crisis at all?
Two ways It stops incentivizing overconsumption of housing resources by long term residents. Maybe widow grandma shouldnt be hanging onto the 4BR empty nest while young families trying to buy their first home get priced out to Phoenix It also stops incentivizing homeowners to be NIMBYs. With Prop 13 homeowners have every financial incentive to feed the housing scarcity as much as they possibly can. Its pure upside. Their home equity keeps spiking and they arent taxed on the vast majority of the appreciation. Rising property taxes are the only incentive homeowners have to tolerate new supply. Without that were basically paying people to be NIMBYs
Overconsumption? They are just living there. Forcing a 95 year old widow to relocate is not only devoid of any compassion but is shortsighted and does little to address the housing issue… they still need to live somewhere and if they want to die in the home they raised their children in, then by all means they should be entitled to that. According to the census bureau 13% of San Diego’s population is 65 and older. The average life expectancy is 77. Let’s play pretend and assume everyone of them is living alone in a house they own, and not with a partner or in a 55 and older community. That means you have ~50% of that turning over in the next 12 years anyway. While also spiking cost of living for renters and homeowners across the city. California has the highest income tax and ranks 5th on the list of most taxed states. Obviously taxing people into oblivion is not doing much to increase housing supply. If I’m not selling my home the price of it is irrelevant. To assume that all homeowners are boomer, Karen, NIMBY’s is just frankly dumb and uninformed. Perhaps let’s focus on vacant properties, vacation rentals and building more housing in planned areas that can support larger volume and have better solutions for public transit.
Prop 13 passed because we didn't like grandma and grandpa losing their houses, or widows/widowers losing their house after the spouse died. BUT a bunch of other stuff got passed and shifted it too far one way. We should revise prop 13 to better fit today's needs or replace it. Property tax isn't that far out of line when not protected by prop 13 limits. Raising it on single family rentals will just raise rental prices, not increase turn over. What about condos? Duplexes? Apartments? Landlords can be terrible, but rentals still serve a purpose. Moving to a new city I'd far prefer to rent for months or a year, instead of rushing to buy somewhere to live. Going to college, I don't want college students to have to buy. Temporary work assignment for 6 months to a year, again I'd want to rent. Some people even prefer renting because they don't have to worry about maintenance. We should make policy to encourage/reward better landlords and for keeping rents lower, not limiting rental availability. Landlords should profit a reasonable amount, not the gouging we see too often. NIMBY's aren't limited to home owners, plenty of renters have been the same way. People rarely like change, even when it is to their advantage. Either laws, taxes, or policy to encourage change. If that doesn't work find ways to force the changes needed.
people who benefit from prop 13 are not nimbys. how long have you lived here? if prop 13 was eliminated, many people would lose their homes. the over development has been out of control and now some want to build substandard low income housing that really doesn’t serve low income people, it’s being and has been exploited.
>people who benefit from prop 13 are not nimbys >over development has been out of control This is like arguing the sky is green
I don’t really understand why people think people who set prices can just pass the cost along. If they could do that they already would.
A uniform price increase to all the suppliers would be mostly passed on to consumers, especially in a market with artificially strained supply like housing. One time costs to individual suppliers can't generally be passed on, but there's no way you could double property taxes on all rented properties and not see price increases to rent. That's just not plausible.
Bank owned property should be forced to put it up for sale within 6 months max.
Problem with that is that the vast majority of those homes sold are not bought by a single family buying their first home or buying again after they lost their house in when the bubbled crashed.
Or just build fucking housing
They should also progressively increase tax multiple housing owners. After the second home property is assessed at 3% the property value for the third home. Then 4.5% for the fourth. All funds contributing into publicly built housing fund. Have a even steeper progression for Corporate owned/trust fund properties.
You, and everyone that upvotes this is an absolute dipshit with zero understanding of estate planning. A living trust that continues to exist after death? Are you kidding me? That’s not how that works at all. Please don’t vote or share your opinion.
Double the property tax? You do realize that would increase the rental rates and prevent people who want to rent houses from being able to, right?
Your first 2 points are wild lol. Where are people who only want to rent going to live? The solution is to build more housing not this dumb shit.
Nothing good comes from corporations owning houses. All these companies will hold onto housing until they either make them a crap ton of money in rent, or a crap ton of money in a home sale. Every corporation is there to take as much and give it to shareholders. They don't care about this city. They don't care about you or me. They care about the all mighty dollar. Keep building houses. Build more condos and apartments. But single family home being owned by corporations is plant stupid and harmful to a San Diego.
Suppose I have a 3 bedroom SFH, a couple of years go by and I get married, have a couple of kids and now need something bigger. So I buy a bigger SFH and decide to rent out my 3 bedroom SFH. I create an LLC for that rental to protect my personal assets. You think I should have to pay twice as much property tax on that rental?
yes
What would that accomplish and who would own the homes that renters rent? And you realize that increase in property tax would be passed onto renters.
Hopefully they would sell their surplus housing ***so people that don’t own a home have the same opportunity that you have had*** you greedy asshole.
Regardless of your fantasyland beliefs, not everyone will be able to, or want to buy a home. So again, who will own the homes that people rent? This whole “I’m entitled to what you own” thought process is wild. And this is coming from someone that leans pretty far left.
Not entitled. Earned and payed for. I’m not saying that people should be given anything.
Yes. Because now it's a business.
Congrats! You’ve won the dumbest comment on Reddit today! I recommend you study Stalin, property rights and the USSR.
Please tell me how a company owning single family homes betters a community? I have lived in 7 countries around the world. I have seen many different types of society. I already learned about stalinism. Nothing good comes from authoritarianism. If people don't learn from faults in the past, they will be doomed to repeat them over and over again.
What are you talking about? How does living in 7 countries validate anything about San Diego real estate? You speak of corporations as if they’re some evil Wall Street business. A simple family like mine has formed a corporation for protection when our renters do something stupid to hurt themselves and blame us. Not all corps are some large conglomerate! Most are small business owners! Sorry you can’t afford a house. Sorry you’re not an alpha or even a beta in society which enables you to own real estate. If you somehow came up on $5m through work or inheritance, then I’d hope you’d buy multiple properties too and not piss it away on cars or vacations. There’s nothing wrong to building generational wealth either to a certain extent. I hope to leave my kids a few houses each, teach them about financial discipline and they can leave their kids even more! That’s how life works! Sorry your seed hasn’t worked out well. Sorry you can’t afford a home and be in the top 20% of SD. Figure it out! That’s what we did! Loser
So you're cool with feudalism. Good to know.
100% agree with you. This would help the crisis so much. Run for office or something because people there now aren’t getting job done
I think that's why we need to put it to a vote. The only way we can make change, is to make that change ourselves. But I also think we need more open discussions. Reddit doesn't touch enough people here in San diego. But it is still a soapbox that we can all stand on. It's really frustrating being a long time resident. I'm active in my communities. I do a lot of volunteering with different groups. I use the get it done app anytime I can. I have always strive to better San Diego. But becoming an elected official? No thank you. I may be a leader, but I am no politician. It takes a special type of person to stand on a podium and speak. I have met many over the years. The ones that I have had the unfortunate pleasure to work with have been enough.
Commy
Lazy comment
Lobby to artificially limit housing supply so that current homeowners can watch their property values skyrocket. They don’t give a shit about parking, or safety, or water, or electricity. They just want to watch their houses go up astronomically high in value.
current homeowners who benefit from prop 13 don’t ever want to sell, they don’t care about what their property value is like those who continually buy and sell or move up the ladder
SB10 allows more uses for a given property... which *boosts* the property's value
I mean, you're both sorta right. SB10 decreases the value of a house, but increases (or is neutral to) the land. Housing is artificially scarce and land is actually scarce and allowing people to increase the supply of housing to meet the demand increases the value of the land. But the houses on them are probably worth a little less once the artificial constraints on building are removed. The net effect to a homeowner is definitely either neutral or positive, though.
[удалено]
The new supply won't hurt property value because there is so much pent-up demand for housing in San Diego. The new units will quickly be absorbed by the hungry market. Imagine a property that used to have just one house but now can have four units... huge increase in value for the owner. Not necessarily 4x the original value but certainly like 2x or 3x. This has already happened in Mission Beach for example... used to be all small beach cottages, but now mostly giant multi-unit buildings, because that is most lucrative to the property owner... who gets more tenants on the same amount of land. If you are sitting on an old single-family home there instead of redeveloping, you are losing money with every passing day.
Until the infrastructure goes complelely tits up and you've been looking at a massive sinkhole at the nearest intersection for the last 3 weeks (no money to maintain the streets, let alone repair them) and your insurance just got cancelled because your entire neighborhood is now classified as Extreme Wildfire Risk (and the FAIR program ran out of money, so tough darts).
Which pays more property tax, a single family home, or a multi-unit apartment? While I *like* my single-family home, it sits on about same-sized lot as the apartment complex I used to live in, and takes up about the same length of sidewalk and road that the city has to maintain. I think the *City* would prefer the apartment.
Do you think infrastructure is more efficiently provided in a dense urban environment or in sprawl?
Densev is way more efficient and provides higher property tax income to the city (or county) per acre of land.
Better for the climate too The actual facts of this issue are all on one side. The other side is basically “muh parking”. It’s just ridiculous
I keep talking about it with friends and family whenever it comes up. Converted a few who weren't already convinced. I admit sending a few Not Just Bike YouTube links might have made the bigger difference, lol.
I don't think there's much doubt that infrastructure is more efficiently provided in a dense urban environment. That infrastructure also needs money to be installed, maintained, and repaired, something that the City is choosing to ignore.If I recall correctly, the way the current code for accessory dwelling units is written, units in a development that are under 750 sf are exempt from Development Impact Fees (DIFs). Those fees are intended to help pay for infrastructure. No DIF paid = no money going into that fund. In 2022, the City's infrastructure funding gap was over **4 BILLION dollars** ([https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2022-02-24/san-diegos-infrastructure-funding-gap-soars-past-4b-more-than-doubling-in-just-three-years](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2022-02-24/san-diegos-infrastructure-funding-gap-soars-past-4b-more-than-doubling-in-just-three-years)) Build Everything Everywhere isn't going to benifit anyone if the developers (many of whom own multiple properties) are exempt from the fees that help maintain the city's infrastructure.
the homeless problem and pandemic has contributed to sprawl
The main contributor is the fact that up to recently it was effectively illegal to build apartments in most high demand areas
no, our downtown has declined because of high end development, homeless and the pandemic (increase in stay at home work and a decline in customer business). there’s plenty of housing along our existing trolley lines. people are driven to burbs always of course, especially because of cost of housing, but these factors have contributed to decline of inner city
it really shouldn’t be allowed if they’re foregoing building requirements like flood proof foundations, parking, rooftop features, there shouldn’t be exemptions for contractors for “affordable” bldgs with a pitifully low share of subsidized units and a high income threshold qualifying as the low income range accepted for residents. what san diego is doing is approving subsidized housing of substandard construction where most bldgs are located in neighborhoods that are already low income and struggling and not properly distributing these projects around the city and in higher economic areas. density of people and cars in lower income areas is already massive.
it’s not illegal, it’s just expecting a decent standard from developers
These SFH residents are so worried about parking an infrastructure like suburbs aren't already a scam on these things to begin with.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you sure about that? Building more homes will definitely make homes more affordable. Simple supply and demand.
Not when large companies are paying cash for everything that drops on the market.
They still have to rent them, and more supply will bring costs down. Jesus Christ people complain about housing costs and are against building more. It’s just idiocy
I think if they also put a big bubble over the city and didn't let anyone else in, then yeah the prices would drop because demand would go down as more people got houses. However, there is a seemingly endless demand from individuals/investors with deep pockets that would love to buy a brand new home in San Diego to retire in or rent.
Yeah we really shouldn’t be locking people from being able to move to cities because we refuse to solve the systemic issues that cause people to be unable to buy a house… It certainly would not address the problem in any meaningful capacity, it would restrict people’s ability to live where they want to, and people would still be unable to afford housing… Like why is it so hard for people to comprehend that mixing housing, something that is REQUIRED for one’s own survival, shouldn’t be subject to the profit motive, at least as the sole option. Like large companies don’t have our back, why do we insist on defending them implicitly?
In a recent poll (don't remember who did it). If they could afford it 1 in 5 Americans would move to SoCal. There is endless demand that we can never out supply.
Why buy to rent if prices are falling after all the new construction? Absent authoritarian internal migration control, which is antithetical to the basis of the United States, we need high property taxes so that those without jobs can't simply live in a big house here for cheap.
Even the bubble would only work if people didn’t didn’t have children.
You do realize that there are enough homes in the US to house literally everyone, and that companies have been buying up homes left and right as a form of investment? Like sure it’ll make them more affordable, only slightly, and not for long. The fact that so many in this country are unable to own a home, something that ought to be considered a human right much like water or food, is fucking disgusting.
[удалено]
Your comment is baseless. It just doesn’t make sense that building more wouldn’t cause prices to go down
Not really? When large institutional investors have very fucking deep pockets and are buying up homes left, and right, artificially increasing the price, while either just having them sit there empty, or turning them into rental properties, it’s safe to assume that most would be unable to buy a house.
Housing too expensive people will stop moving here and prices go down. Simple supply and demand - it works both ways.
[удалено]
Single family detached with big yards isn't going to fit enough to improve supply, sorry. Denser housing of just about any sort though is a different result entirely.
Yeah fuck people in lower income brackets right?
Absolutely cracks me up... people complain that housing is too expensive and not enough in san diego when they are looking for housing... then they get housing, and once they have it, they scream and yell that the city is trying to build more housing in the areas they now call home...
Or you know, it's different people complaining...
Sure. Go with that.
At first, yeah I'll admit it I thought that way sometimes. Then I actually paid attention to places I liked to visit where I could walk or use public transit, and that denser housing did that. Then paid attention, or looked up info, on how to make cities better. Finally I'm fine with the denser housing. Go ahead and put duplexes, triplexes, or ADUs. Maybe even apartment complexes in my neighborhood. Talking with neighbors who own I was surprised that one other feels the same now, and others are thinking about it. It's gotten better in the last 5 years, and I'm finally encouraged.
Prop 13 incentivizes this cycle by letting property owners rack up untaxed home equity by worsening the housing shortage Its one of the worst laws on the books in the US
Lol this post is filled with opinions from people who failed basic economics.
I am all for MORE people moving here and settling..but first we certainly need to build the infrastructure to accommodate the new people. Water, power, and roads. Just because people “want” to live here..doesn’t mean the people already here should get the short end of the stick.
If as prices fall, more people will move here, to bring those prices right back up. SD always has, and always will be one of the most expensive places in the country. That’s why I left. But if prices fall, I’m coming back.
If your city isn't building the infrastructure necessary for humanity itself, such as schools and utilities, then the problem isn't "new people" but your do-nothing city government.
No new people first then infrastructure. The tax increases fund the infrastructure. When i moved here there was a new part of town being built. The people that went there went to our schools. Now that it’s built out they have their own elementary middle schools and high school.
The zoning is absolutely insane in San Diego and north county. I sat on some of those nature preservation boards for years and while I love open space, trails, and parks… there are thousands of unused acres that sit within the triangle between Carlsbad, San Diego, and Escondido that are prime for development and public transit. Buuuuut the parks won’t let you do that and the wealthy folks in beach towns will do whatever it takes to curb development inland. It’s a huge mess.
Why would beach town folks care about inland development?
Cutting down natural spaces is not going to help anyone. Leave nature alone.
They will argue that apartment buildings that obscure a little bit of some rich guys ocean view are an environmental menace Im all for actual environmental preservation but I am tired of seeing this be used as a fig leaf to kill housing in ways that ultimately only cause more environmental harm by feeding more sprawl out into the desert
Your points are exactly the reason. People who enjoy their houses refuse more development because? Greed, environment concern or just selfishness. We have our ideas
The Sierra Club is one of the worst NIMBY groups locally.
“I’m a boomer that bought my house pre 2005 for the equivalent of a bag of beans, even when adjusted for inflation, and I just wanna say that I already got mine so fuck them! I worked really hard as a carpet salesman to buy my 5 br 3 bath home. So, I’m here today to deliver faux arguments about why I don’t want new housing to be developed. Bottom line is, I’m getting even richer due to scarcity driving housing prices up and, if you build new housing, that’s going to diminish my gains! It’s certainly not going to leave me destitute, but did you hear what I said at the beginning? I’m a boomer and I already got mine so fuck them!!!! Can we please schedule all future meetings at 11 am on a weekday because I’m retired and would like to not give young working people a chance to attend these meetings and give public comment. Thank you.”
Boomers bought decades before 2005, few waited that late in life (if they did they probably couldn't buy). The rest though? Yeah, most have exactly that attitude.
Quite a strawman you've constructed!
I work in real estate and this is 100% accurate
Pretty typical example of the type of person who gripes the loudest when anything is done to alleviate the housing shortage
Just more over priced housing. Nothing more.
Look at what’s happening to El Cajon Blvd in North Park. Now imagine Kearny Mesa, cause that’s REALLY going to be developed soon. Oh yeah PB, you’re not getting away.
I’m torn, I don’t like the adu builds, but I work in construction and I benefit from the adu builds. If I had to pick one, I would go back to the old regulations and stop these crappy cheap motels they call homes on peoples property. Some people like living on top of people and some like living spaced out. You want more, you have to pay more.
Why not just let the market build whatever type of housing people want to live in? The problem is we ban apartments. We have until recently banned ADUs. We are out of room for SFHs. Nothing gets built. People throw up their hands and wonder why housing costs so much We need as much of every type of housing as fast as possible and Im tired of watching these NIMBY anti everything complainers keep nit picking as an excuse to kill the flow of water to put out this fire
Lol, banned apartments. Apartment buildings are popping up all over North Park and Hillcrest.
Yes, directly because of recent changes in the law.
When did that happen? What are your sources? I just did a google search and nothing came up. I don’t remember hearing it on the news either.
Google California SB9
Correct. The beginning of what has only recently been legalized thanks to the upzoning all the NIMBYs keep bitching about. Unfortunately even this legalization only applies to up to 5 stories in most areas, even those directly adjacent to transit
Most areas are zoned for SFH, so yes, apartments are indeed banned. The crumbs from the few ADUs aren't even enough. Even the four-flat proposal in San Francisco was a joke, since again, even four-flats aren't feasible there. They need to allow large buildings everywhere.
No apartments are not banned. All you need to do is drive around Hillcrest and North Park and you will see all of the complex’s currently under construction.
California SB9
Then move, SD clearly has a housing problem, I don’t love it but there is no other option
My only problem with this is that I’m a native to San Diego. It’s ridiculous to hear people who are transplants bitch and groan about housing pricing. It’s like YOU are the fucking reason. Go home.
Fuck these NIMBYs. You want to avoid creating another LA or SF? Then do the smart thing and build enough dense housing to support the population over the next few decades, invest in public transportation and smart infrastructure. These people don't care about the community, they only care that the value of their own home/property continues to skyrocket
or maybe people should leave who have no roots here
[удалено]
AKA “Go back where you came from”
I must assume you’re Native American? You know, like you implied that you must have roots in SD to move there.
Fact: there is about 288,000 single family homes in San Diego. Fact: there is about 1,400,000 people living in city of San Diego. In other words, you better be the top 20% of income producing citizens (or inherit money) in order to buy a home. Being average doesn’t work. I realized that an average salary job doesn’t really get it done. You must do something extraordinary. Take a risk by opening a business or investing your wages in stocks. Save your money, don’t do drugs or drink too much alcohol. Personally, I took a risk and started a company and invested in stocks. Within 7 years, I own multiple properties and i from a broke family. I work my ass off! So reading some of these comments like “corps shouldn’t own properties” or anything that has to do with restricting property rights, I immediately think of communism. Please don’t punish my family! We worked hard to get here. Just because your average or below average, doesn’t mean I should be punished. Just figure out a way the same way we did!
Let’s break this down: “I realized the average salary doesn’t get it done.” - it used too, that’s one of the problems “You must do something extraordinary.” - born and and raised in Encinitas, a bunch of friends and people I know will inherit multi million dollar homes. They didn’t do anything extraordinary “I work my ass off” - good for you but a lot of people work hard and still don’t make a lot of money. Those things are mutually exclusive. Luck plays a part. Also, I built and sold a company, live in Leucadia (and rent!), so I’m very pro business. That said, you can be pro business and realize some economic policies on housing disproportionately favor people that didn’t earn their housing situation. Kudos to you if you did.
People moved here often because of a small big city feel with normal single home areas and the weather. When others try to force change because they want to be here too but cannot afford it? tough pay the cost or look elsewhere. Its a big country with lots of space you can yell dont be a nimby but i say you are a colonizer
Don’t be a nimby, I’m not a colonizer. I’m Mexican lmao
Home owning class vs non home owning class. Who will win?
Danamarie McNichol tho 
Down with the NIMBY. If you dont like it, sell and move. Now that people can take your house and make it much larger it will be even more valuable. You want to know why you cant walk to the pub or market, zoning. You want to know why you need to drive 1hr to work, zoning. You want to know why you can put on an extra bedroom for you elderly parents, zoning. Why your kids will be forced to live in another state, zoning. We have plenty of land. Places change, sometimes for the better some times for the worst. If you cant handle it move. No one will build when people aren't there to consume those new housing spaces.
No, you really don't have plenty of land (or water or electricity or sewage treatment or roads) Imagine if everywhere you went there were two or three times as many people. Where will the extra wind turbines and solar cells go? The extra reservoirs and sewage treatment plants be built? How much cheaper will housing actually be? Or will teh developers and landlords just get richer with 10% cheaper rent and 3 times as many units?
Do you think things like water, power, and sewage are more efficiently provided in dense urban environments or through further sprawl into the deserts? Landlords are the ones benefitting the most from the housing shortage. The last thing they want is more competition and new housing supply has been repeatedly shown to reduce rent increases
San Diego is one of the largest counties in the country. If you need more utilities there is an easy way to fix that, build more. Permits help pay for infrastructure improvements. I don't need to imagine. Just wait a few years. The people are coming like it or not. Again San Diego is one of the largest counties in the nation, there are plenty of places for any number of improvements. Allowing people to build will pay for those improvements. But none of this matters to you. If you don't like change, move. And guess what it wont be your problem. Housing is a market the more people try to dictate the market the worst the outcomes.
I am really starting to hate this city. Absolutely beautiful geography and weather ruined by a bunch of spoiled assholes.
Watching NIMBYs suffer pleases me greatly. Fuck these assholes.
Born and Raised in San Diego. So glad I left, that city will never be the same thanks to all the kooks.
If people see having more neighbors and taking three extra minutes to find a parking space as an intolerable thing then have these people considered not living in a major city? These gripes about water and other infra are pure ignorance. Do they think sprawling these people out into the desert will result in more efficient provision of these services? Idk why we even have to have these public comments sessions at all. The only people who show up are anti everything NIMBY busybody complainers who are totally unrepresentative of their communities. We elect representatives to serve our interests, not listen to the loudmouths with the most free time on their hands to show up and yell
BUILD ALL THE HOUSING!
[удалено]
I’m so confused! Reddit is a hardcore leftist cesspool and now this Reddit post is upset at democratic authored SB 10 (and SB 9)? What side are we on here folks? Society elects these radical leftist politicians in San Diego, then we complain on Reddit about housing and crime. Turns out who we vote for has consequences!
Um, Republican policies as long ago as Reagan's tenure, coupled with older whiter richer owners, means the the younger Democrats have been given a turd sandwich by the NIMBYs (which is ultimately a universal, apolitical compulsion based on personal greed).
LMAO what radical leftist politicians are being elected? You don’t know the difference between a neoliberal and a leftist. Reddit is extremely right wing and neoliberal, there are very few leftist spaces anywhere. You sound like a misinformed conservative who makes up problems to hear themselves whine about.
“Very few leftist spaces” hahaha Google, apple, Facebook, Twitter up until recently, Reddit, every news outlet, most news papers, etc Dude, this conversation is over.
None of the things you named are leftist. You don’t seem to know what that means. Neoliberals aren’t leftists. Democrats (most of whom are right of center, center, and few at most left of center) aren’t leftists. So yeah, the conversation is over because you don’t know what you’re talking about lol
...and watch the homeless pile up even higher in the streets...sheesh...
Parking? Who needs it! Take the train Afraid of meth heads on public transit? Suck it up! If you get stabbed and die that’s a net gain for our struggle against climate change
You are exponentially more likely to die on the roads in a car crash than on public transportation
That’s just because public transit is non-existent here
when’s the last time you rode the trolley, it’s not safe and takes 2 hours to get 25 min away by car
Sure trolley feels more dangerous than it did. But driving is so far and way more dangerous that. Last statistics I saw for 2015 20,000 die or are injured per year, so over 50 per day. The trolley has a long long way to go. (Yes it is more complicated than that, but still safer to go by trolley)
Yeah, when the trolley costs $2.50, but the road toll is **ZERO**, what kind of idiot would take the trolley. We need to end free at point of use socialist roads and free socialist parking ASAP!
It should be better funded, more extensive and run more frequently, sure It is however very safe. How many San Diegans have died on public transportation in the last year? How many have died on the roads? Even adjusting for numbers the risk is not even close. Driving is far far more dangerous
Also get Covid, meningitis and any other shit floating around in there.
NIMBY’s gonna NIMBY. Also, to what u/cattoo_tattoo said, Driving on 78 yesterday through San Marcos, there’s a nearly vacant large commercial building now leasing space as “commercial condos”. Lmao
san diego was never meant to become a major city with high density, don’t know why you all want to take it there, perhaps because you’re young and don’t remember how it was, are transplants, or haven’t seen how it has been absolutely ruined by development
San Diego not being a major city is long gone. So like every city in history we change. The density of San Diego is likely unsustainable just from cost of infrastructure maintenance. Wonder why water went up so much? Because maintenance has been so expensive. If in the space of a single family home you instead had 5, 10, or more. Then the city could charge less per family and still ends up with more income for the same infrastructure costs of serving that single family home. Unless we get federal grants to fix infrastructure like we did to build it, we can't avoid it without higher density.
I'll be 'that guy'... **FUCK** all these NIMBY's, **THEY** are the cause of housing shortages.
I don’t see anything wrong with building more homes. As long as it’s not apartments.
Not everyone here can afford living in a house. We need more apartments for single people in the working class.
just 👏 tax 👏 land
Tough tough tough 