SW Santee - will/should that area improve?

[Clark Fork Fantast]

Originally Posted by SDAirportAPM

Isn't Santee super NIMBY though? If any new development happens there it's probably going to be sprawl and not dense housing.

Huge development coming at Fanita Ranch. The enormous Mast Blvd. development is probably not completed yet. If Santeeans are NIMBY it is entirely understandable. The area has changed dramatically in the past 20 years, with apartment and business developments.

[SDAirportAPM]

Originally Posted by Clark Fork Fantast

Huge development coming at Fanita Ranch. The enormous Mast Blvd. development is probably not completed yet. If Santeeans are NIMBY it is entirely understandable. The area has changed dramatically in the past 20 years, with apartment and business developments.

By NIMBY I mean those opposed to dense, urban development and transit that YIMBYs promote. YIMBYs hate sprawl. They are environmentalists and promote urban infill instead. Mission Valley is YIMBY.

But Santee is NIMBY because they say no to density but meanwhile approve sprawl like Fanita Ranch (much to the chagrin of environmentalists).

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by SDAirportAPM

By NIMBY I mean those opposed to dense, urban development and transit that YIMBYs promote. YIMBYs hate sprawl. They are environmentalists and promote urban infill instead. Mission Valley is YIMBY.

But Santee is NIMBY because they say no to density but meanwhile approve sprawl like Fanita Ranch (much to the chagrin of environmentalists).

There are plenty of areas where you can already live stacked on top of one another.

[Clark Fork Fantast]

Originally Posted by SDAirportAPM

By NIMBY I mean those opposed to dense, urban development and transit that YIMBYs promote. YIMBYs hate sprawl. They are environmentalists and promote urban infill instead. Mission Valley is YIMBY.

But Santee is NIMBY because they say no to density but meanwhile approve sprawl like Fanita Ranch (much to the chagrin of environmentalists).

Urban infill is a good thing?

There is of course a third option, also acceptable to environmentalists. Leave those hills alone.

[SDAirportAPM]

Originally Posted by Clark Fork Fantast

Urban infill is a good thing?

There is of course a third option, also acceptable to environmentalists. Leave those hills alone.

Environmentalists want to leave those hills alone. That's why they want urban infill. Redevelop underutilized areas in the urban core (like the old Qualcomm Stadium) instead of sprawling into the hills.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Clark Fork Fantast

Urban infill is a good thing?

There is of course a third option, also acceptable to environmentalists. Leave those hills alone.

I can't understand how adding another million people to San Diego County is going to help the environment.

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

I can't understand how adding another million people to San Diego County is going to help the environment.

It won't.

[eastcoastbias]

To my knowledge Fanita Ranch has been defeated on a couple of occasions

[eastcoastbias]

Originally Posted by SDAirportAPM

Environmentalists want to leave those hills alone. That's why they want urban infill. Redevelop underutilized areas in the urban core (like the old Qualcomm Stadium) instead of sprawling into the hills.

And the “non-environmentalists” or better term “less environmentalist” want a sound plan instead of just we need to add homes.

You need to deal with (or expand upon) transportation, infrastructure and public services like school and police and fire coverage when you consider development.

It is such a San Diego thing to just build units and homes and forget about the stress it causes in other areas of life and travel and public services.

Not to say the environmental concerns aren’t valid here as that area is ripe for wild fires.