Question about the future of development along the coast (San Diego: houses, to buy)

[BuildingsR' Us]

I'v only traveled between San Diego and Malibu. My question is would there ever be some kind of rush for developers to buy up land in NorCal to build luxary estates for its advantage to close proximity to the ocean?

When i look at google maps of the coastal towns above Santa Barbara, they appear pretty small, but in 20 years from now when people realize Southern California beach cities are pricey and very populated, would they be pressured to seek up north in a quieter community that still has easy access to beaches and scenery?

How would this affect perserving nature along the coast?

I notice that some coastal folks have this entitlement of belonging in "their paradise" and get very fustrated with tourist/Inland people causing traffic and existence. I dont think these type of people want more growth and new neighbors.

Population growth is inevitable in California, and the state's coast isn't endless like it might of felt in the 1900's. We are eventually going to need to set a limit.

[DriveNotCommute]

I've always thought that there are already geological obstacles that make construction expensive along a lot of the northern coasts, otherwise there would already be more construction out there. There are also a lot of designated park land on the coast.

In general, I mostly agree with your idea. However, wouldn't this affect the existing small towns? Some may not want to ever grow but others might find unexpected economic opportunity in doing so and any rule would limit their option and freedom to choose.

[nightlysparrow]

Originally Posted by BuildingsR' Us

My question is would there ever be some kind of rush for developers to buy up land in NorCal to build luxary estates for its advantage to close proximity to the ocean?

Not with the California Coastal Commission's strict policies in force since 1972. Most of the CA coast north of the Bay Area is permanently protected, and any other central and southern areas usually cannot get building permits, even for privately held land.

https://www.wra-ca.com/coastal-devel...mmon-pitfalls/

[Chuck5000]

The coast will never be developed significantly, and this is a good thing. Even if you could assemble a popular majority coalition to do so (also will never happen) there are many geographical barriers (mountains) that would pose major traffic problems and make any develeopment very problematic, aside from maybe a small number of parcels.

Preservation of the coast is also pretty much written in stone. You can look up the Coastal Commission to learn more. (Thank god, otherwise we'd have LA-like houses, mountain-top cuts, and traffic from that city all the way up to Fort Bragg. )

California can and will grow inside of it's current cities. It generally takes a long time, however, for the public will to develop more. In pockets, it's already happening, like Mountain View.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

The problem is lack of water. Local surface waters can barely support the existing needs, ground water is not in abundance and there are only so many extensions possible to the State Water System.

[Ruth4Truth]

There already has been some of that going on, OP, in parts of the north or central coast that have easy beach access, i.e. flat terrain, as opposed to Big Sur-type rugged cliffs. In some areas, developers sewed up beachfront long ago, already (Stinson Beach, for ex.); in other areas, wealthy individuals have nabbed acreage for themselves. But some of the coast is all public park/national seashore beaches that are separated from residential areas by the highway.

[expatCA]

Plus the weather is not as warm year round as So Cal and the water is cold for most of the year and nothing like So Cal, so it would not develop the same way or at the same rate.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by nightlysparrow

Not with the California Coastal Commission's strict policies in force since 1972. Most of the CA coast north of the Bay Area is permanently protected, and any other central and southern areas usually cannot get building permits, even for privately held land.

https://www.wra-ca.com/coastal-devel...mmon-pitfalls/

Beat me to it.

CA voters long ago saw that protecting the state's most important asset - it's coast - is much more important than whatever gains would be made by development and industrialization of pristine coastal lands. The CCC is not a body to mess with.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Beat me to it.

CA voters long ago saw that protecting the state's most important asset - it's coast - is much more important than whatever gains would be made by development and industrialization of pristine coastal lands. The CCC is not a body to mess with.

One of the things CA has actually done well.