San Diego leads the U.S. in income growth (condos, appliances)

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by sav858

When you moved here San Diego already had millions of people though. You basically helped contribute to the problem you're complaining about.

If the city was making necessary investments in water, transportation and economic development, it would be a different story. They've barely done anything. We have a trolley that doesn't go to the job centers and a major traffic and infrastructure backlog.

20 years ago San Diego wasn't overwhelmed by it's own population. That's the crux of the issue, we are being marketed to by developers to believe that building housing is a solution, when it's actually the cause of the problem. Do we really think that building mega-plexes next to the freeway with no additional water, fire, schools, parks or transportation system improvements is a good idea?

Other cities have managed their growth by restricting development, and they are many of the places held up as being fantastic, i.e. Portland OR is an obvious example. I don't think this is such the terrible idea that you are trying to make it out to be. Places can get loved to death, try visiting a national park if you want an example of that.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

It is unrealistic to expect human nature to be intelligent enough to recognize its foolishness. I have no such expectations. Just observations

Yeah you're talking about something else again...

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Anyone has a perfect right to make observations about species stupidities.

As I have said before: demanding individuals take broad responsibility for cultural and species-wide failing is a strawman position. I do take personal responsibility as far as an individual reasonably can through my lifestyle choices.

That said, I was originally brought to San Diego by Uncle Sam when I was 18-19, to serve the nation in armed forces. That was 1966, bro. Yes, I moved around California since then and have only returned in the past 4 years, to enjoy the benefits -particularly those afforded military retirees in a city deeply populated by military and facilities. Pretty sure I earned my place ... including under fire for a few years.

You also thought the same thing about living in the Bay Area; you somehow were more entitled to live in the region because you came before others. Your military service doesn't give you anymore right to live in SD than anyone else. The fact of the matter is you contributed to the problem you complain about and its hypocritical.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

If the city was making necessary investments in water, transportation and economic development, it would be a different story. They've barely done anything. We have a trolley that doesn't go to the job centers and a major traffic and infrastructure backlog.

20 years ago San Diego wasn't overwhelmed by it's own population. That's the crux of the issue, we are being marketed to by developers to believe that building housing is a solution, when it's actually the cause of the problem. Do we really think that building mega-plexes next to the freeway with no additional water, fire, schools, parks or transportation system improvements is a good idea?

Other cities have managed their growth by restricting development, and they are many of the places held up as being fantastic, i.e. Portland OR is an obvious example. I don't think this is such the terrible idea that you are trying to make it out to be. Places can get loved to death, try visiting a national park if you want an example of that.

I agree about the lack of infrastructure investment, it's generally a big problem with development as they are inherently intertwined but don't seem to be planned very well together. Recognizing that not sure why in the next paragraph you blame building housing as the crux of the problem when you just admitted its the lack of infrastructure investment. Though I'm sure plenty felt SD was overwhelmed when you first moved there as well. That old "it wasn't as bad when I moved here" can be said by anyone pretty much.

Portland, OR has been using the model that you seemed to be arguing against earlier, denser development near transit lines/corridors. Seems kind of odd to somehow praise it now.

Now it seems like your problem with growth is bad planning, which I agree with, not growth itself. Little confused because you seem all over the place now.

[kttam186290]

Just build another "Temecula" somewhere out near El Centro

[benshaton]

If they excluded landlords from their survey, San Diego definitely would not be the leader in income growth. It's a larger pie, but the pieces are only bigger for a few.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by sav858

Now it seems like your problem with growth is bad planning, which I agree with, not growth itself. Little confused because you seem all over the place now.

Same thing. Population growth primarily manifests itself in new housing. Let's look at the track record for new housing built in San Diego:

- 1960's - cheap rental crapartments destroyed greater North Park
- 1970's - tract sprawl
- 1980's - tract sprawl
- 1990's - tract sprawl
- 2000's - mostly tract sprawl + condos
- 2010 - cheap rental mega-partments next to freeways

I don't have the faith in local government to "get it right this time" that you seem to.

[Neroburnedit]

San Francisco is an interesting case study. It is the most expensive city in the United States in which to live. Although population growth has slowed significantly, the population is still growing. In 2010 San Francisco had 805,225 residents and in 2018 it has 884,363. Growth of about 1% per year.

[Neroburnedit]

The Ten most costly cities in the U.S. to live comfortably
1. San Francisco: $123,268​ to live comfortably
2. New York: $99,667
3. San Jose: $99,431
4. Oakland: $95,611
5. Washington, D.C.: $90,811
6. Seattle: $89,248
7. Boston: $88,967
8. Los Angeles: $87,260
9. Anaheim: $86,721
10. Honolulu: $85,367
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/cos...ve-cities.html

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by spoonman1

Ah, Tulemutt was brought here against his will and has determined himself to be worthy of migrating to SD. Not like those lesser people that want to live here.

In all seriousness, thank you for your service. Your post though does reek of self importance and entitlement.

Originally Posted by sav858

Yeah you're talking about something else again...

You also thought the same thing about living in the Bay Area; you somehow were more entitled to live in the region because you came before others. Your military service doesn't give you anymore right to live in SD than anyone else. The fact of the matter is you contributed to the problem you complain about and its hypocritical.

Tulemutt was not “brought here against his will.” That is false paraphrasing. I very willingly enlisted for service and was damned pleased to be sent to California and make it my home base.

“Self-important”? Lol. No feelings of such whatsoever. I have no illusions that anyone, very much including myself, is in the slightest bit “important”.

Now, qualified to speak to the issues? Oh yeah. “Entitled”? Mmm, I guess, yeah. Here’s the deal you guys are missing:

First off, I don’t subscribe to any kind of “birthright entitlements”. Period. Including citizenship. In my view, a person has entitlement only to what is earned. I have earned my place in society, nation, state through service and lifestyle both. Not just military service, though that is clearly a strong qualifier. I also contribute to community concerns from litter clean up (I am constantly cleaning along and on waterways especially) to assisting veterans and homeless services ... I have particularly assisted in benefits counseling for service members in crisis. I’ve been a suicide line counselor, as well.

But, aside from such specific volunteerism, the footprint I impose on my environment is about as minimal as possible. I live on a small boat (24’ sailboat) and partially in my little diesel van I use to tow the boat places. In doing so I use next to no electricity other than self-generated while driving / sailing. I use less than 10 gallons of water a day on average, including laundry. In San Diego, specifically, I live aboard at military marinas that place me in the airport, Point Loma, Rosecrans part of town ... where I walk or ride my bicycle almost exclusively as I enjoy the selection of stores and food establishments and trails, parks, beaches of Liberty Station, Harbor Island, Shelter Island, Naval Base Pt. Loma, MCRD, Old Town ... etc etc etc. everything I like and need within a couple miles of pedaling, sailing, walking.

Thus, I am not burdening the city in any measurable way.

When you want to attack me for “moving in” on San Diego, you need to find some way in which I add to the problem. You also need to find a way to demonstrate that I have failed to contribute more to the QOL in the city than most residents - including those there by “birthright”.

[spoonman1]

Originally Posted by Neroburnedit

The Ten most costly cities in the U.S. to live comfortably
1. San Francisco: $123,268​ to live comfortably
2. New York: $99,667
3. San Jose: $99,431
4. Oakland: $95,611
5. Washington, D.C.: $90,811
6. Seattle: $89,248
7. Boston: $88,967
8. Los Angeles: $87,260
9. Anaheim: $86,721
10. Honolulu: $85,367
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/cos...ve-cities.html

This list goes to 50. San Diego is #12. Miami is #11. If you just consider metro areas, San Diego would rate even higher...especially as some of these cities (like Boston) only account for a small portion of their metro area.