San Diego leads the U.S. in income growth (real estate, buyers)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

If development is done right, building in already developed urban areas and along transit corridors, it can actually make SD even more desirable and well continue to grow the economy with high income jobs. But yeah some tacky Orange County like sprawl would definitely deteriorate the quality of life.

I understand the theory that development can be done as you say by increasing density along corridors. But I will persist in pointing out that further growth adds nothing of value that SD lacks already. We don’t need to grow the economy. And we don’t need to add more high income jobs that will just drive the housing market ever higher and higher.

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell - Edward Abbey

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I understand the theory that development can be done as you say by increasing density along corridors. But I will persist in pointing out that further growth adds nothing of value that SD lacks already. We don’t need to grow the economy. And we don’t need to add more high income jobs that will just drive the housing market ever higher and higher.

SD lacks housing options for many, enough high paying jobs to support the COL, good public transit, and for some a quality urban environment so yeah smarter, better growth could definitely improve SD in ways that its lacking right now. You seem to think all growth is bad, it's not necessarily.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

SD lacks housing options for many, enough high paying jobs to support the COL, good public transit, and for some a quality urban environment so yeah smarter, better growth could definitely improve SD in ways that its lacking right now. You seem to think all growth is bad, it's not necessarily.

You oversimplify my position. I quoted Edward Abbey: “Growth for the sake of growth ...” ... “for the sake of growth” is not the same as “all growth”.

That said: at this point, our entire planet is exponentially past population sustainability as focused on materialistic goals. Furthermore, even were we as a species to suddenly develop the intelligence and character to manage our populations’ needs and desires sustainably ... there is still zero advantage to the numbers ... and psychologically the constraints and accommodations are exhibiting ever increasing neuroses.

Growth is suitable and important under limited parameters defined within sustainable goals. Increasing SD density without subscription to long-term sustainability goals - without infinite growth in our finite parameters - is quite insane.

But then, humanity is quite insanely a runaway cancer of a species.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by sav858

If development is done right, building in already developed urban areas and along transit corridors, it can actually make SD even more desirable and well continue to grow the economy with high income jobs. But yeah some tacky Orange County like sprawl would definitely deteriorate the quality of life.

Yeah cuz much of California is not itself sprawl, nothing like that ghetto Concord and further east.

[malcorub16]

Originally Posted by nmguy

I lived among the rich and not-so-famous of Palo Alto for 50 years and wasn't impressed with the wealth, which was accompanied by a haughty attitude. San Diego, with its laid-back attitude, is much more pleasant. Believe me, having lots of money ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Having money is always nice, very nice actually....but not when you live around other money where everyone knows each other and is competing with one another. There is enough competition in the work place, no need to bring the competition and the stress it brings to where you live.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You oversimplify my position. I quoted Edward Abbey: “Growth for the sake of growth ...” ... “for the sake of growth” is not the same as “all growth”.

That said: at this point, our entire planet is exponentially past population sustainability as focused on materialistic goals. Furthermore, even were we as a species to suddenly develop the intelligence and character to manage our populations’ needs and desires sustainably ... there is still zero advantage to the numbers ... and psychologically the constraints and accommodations are exhibiting ever increasing neuroses.

Growth is suitable and important under limited parameters defined within sustainable goals. Increasing SD density without subscription to long-term sustainability goals - without infinite growth in our finite parameters - is quite insane.

But then, humanity is quite insanely a runaway cancer of a species.

Well I do think SD's growth plans support sustainability, at least compared to the past and present growth model. SD is going to grow either way, might as well plan for it and I agree in a more sustainable way.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

Well I do think SD's growth plans support sustainability, at least compared to the past and present growth model. SD is going to grow either way, might as well plan for it and I agree in a more sustainable way.

In the absence of offsetting reductions, I don’t see how perpetual growth in a finite paradigm can be “sustainable”. But I would be interested to hear how if you can explain. ... Even “... compared to the past and present growth model” perpetual growth without offsets is mathematically impossible.

That said, you are correct SD is going to grow in spite of the lack of wisdom to do so. And you’re right that planning can be applied to make it less catastrophic for a while.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

In the absence of offsetting reductions, I don’t see how perpetual growth in a finite paradigm can be “sustainable”. But I would be interested to hear how if you can explain. ... Even “... compared to the past and present growth model” perpetual growth without offsets is mathematically impossible.

That said, you are correct SD is going to grow in spite of the lack of wisdom to do so. And you’re right that planning can be applied to make it less catastrophic for a while.

Offsetting and reducing what exactly?

Not sure how you think you can stop growth.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

Offsetting and reducing what exactly?

Not sure how you think you can stop growth.

Offsetting population through reductions. You can’t perpetually grow beyond mortality replacement rates unless you move people out. Which you can’t force. Therefore :. growth is not ultimately sustainable.

There are ways to stop growth and even reduce population naturally without restricting births forcibly. Humanity isn’t intelligent enough to pursue reduction though.

There isn’t any way in our democratic republic system to restrict growth by denying access. So, right: it’s not going to stop.

I’m just pointing out the folly of our “perpetual growth for growth’s sake” material culture. It’s my avocation.

[NYSD1995]

you can stop growth once the city becomes prohibitively expensive and there are few incentives for immigration. It's kind of already happening. I agree there is no reason we have to accomodate growth, that is just the greedy local governments telling us it's some sort of civic duty to keep construction workers employed.

SD is not some growth hotbed, however a lot of it's housing stock is old, in poor repair and unsuitable and many of the people already here are really in bad housing... If our city government actually cared about it's residents, we'd be getting tax incentives to improve our properties instead of being suckered into more apartment density, traffic, trash and noise.

The fact that a lot of the newer and younger people here believe that more housing is going to make property more affordable, tells you something about the collective intelligence of the population, or at least the marketing abilities of developers and government are better than I thought.

I do like the idea of turning places like Midway / Rosecrans into techno-housing for the millenials... they'll love it and nothing is lost, that area is garbage and anything is an improvement.