Kudos!!! We The People must always come out in droves to put a halt to such travesties -- now, and always. My sincerest congratulations; you are an inspirational community!!
Money changed hands to make that footnote happen. That money was a bribe paid to a city employee by a developer. Follow the money, find the bribe taker, throw them in jail.
Kudos to all those who worked to reveal this legislative sleight-of-hand! The folks who put footnote 7 together certainly knew what they were doing, counting on state law to drag out any dissenting appeals until their development buddies' checks cleared. KPBS: great segment! You fit a ton of information in a very short amount of time while still making everything cohesive and understandable -- really good work by your team!
to dissuade you from even trying ...same with any laws that are passed it costs millions to get an appeal all the way through lower courts and up to SCOTUS while the Govt is using YOUR tax dollars to fight its own citizens
Developers making 4 times the profit. City making 4 times the revenue. At a cost of 4 times the waste, poor air qquality (no vegetation or green spaces), bigger school enrollment, 4 times the trash, traffic congestation, burden on water usage and sewage, and the list goes on and on. Force the developer to stick to the 20000 fot minimum zoning and abolish footnote #7
then the city expects the air quality boards to cover up the mass pollution created by all those cars that come with those houses. Newsom must be getting a kickback too!
You do realize that with the city getting 4x the revenue they can now pay for 4x the school capacity and 4x the trash pickup, right? Also, dense housing is literally better for air quality and water usage lol
big minimum lot sizes means we need longer roads, longer pipes, and longer cables between each house. The solution is to build a multi-family building instead of many single-family homes.
One thing to do as homeowner selling their property is to not sell to a private equity developer. Sell to other people looking to start families. No flippers, either. If you can, based on your circumstances and needs. Personal greed is feeding the high housing cost market.
Zoning boards are an often overlooked part of our government and people try to get on them as a means to climb political ladders. Then the developers come and run roughshod over them, because they don't want to stop the gravy train. Make sure you have honest qualified people on the zoning board.
One or more decision makers are benefitting from this, whether financially, they know the developers, or someone wants to keep "those people" in a certain area. I really admire the local residents are being active in calling this out.
This is what would/will happen. The developers create those neighborhoods. The surrounding home values increase. The taxes in those surrounding neighborhoods increase. The people who live there can no longer afford the taxes and are forced to sell. This happens all over America, especially urban areas. It's how Charlotte and Compton were able to reduce the poor black population. In my opinion, the footnote represents a blatant effort by the city to defraud those people. Especially seeing as it was only applied, specifically, to the poorest areas.
Smallest revisions in Planning regulations will have to go through years and decades of process and public hearings in any part of California, for Encanto it happens over night behind the closed doors by corrupt people. This is a perfect example for Gentrification lead by government authorities. This is systematic racism happening in the finest city in 2024!
Who’s racist here? The people who created and approved the footnote are POC and presumably they were voted in by POC too. And the people protesting it are obviously doing a NIMBY.
Look to see who on the city council stands to gain the most from this development. Who is being paid off by the proposed developments. Who has past relationships with the developers. Follow the money.
City residents benefit from the housing but they're too selfish to realize it. Keep restricting density then you'll keep seeing a skyrocketing cost of living. Supply and demand can't work when government is restricting the supply.
Somehow densification is never in Los Altos or Beverly Hills or Newport Beach or La Jolla. And somehow new apartments are always more expensive, not less.
@@fluxcapacitor1621 We are not selfish; we are questioning how a footnote enabling a 500% increase in density appeared overnight in the Zoning regulations of a single neighborhood. This neighborhood has faced a history of gentrification and systemic racism dating back to World War II. Once a refuge for Japanese families expelled from the City, primarily farmland. Encanto has endured generations of underinvestment, leaving it with the infrastructure sufficient to barely support its existing families, let alone 500% increase in density. Maybe you should visit our neighborhood before calling us selfish!
@@fereshtehirani9921 Encanto is one of very few neighborhoods with a trolley station, has excellent connections to practically all freeways, better-than-average roads compared to Stockton or even North Park/Hillcrest, and a lot of fried chicken restaurants. Who cares about Japanese that were bought out over 80 years ago for land that eventually became easement for public infrastructure? Your point is moot, anachronistic, and sounds straight out of a DEI handbook.
noo no, dont let the private property owners make money off they land they legally own if they do it near my house! its against the free market for the government not to protect my investment!
It's not acceptable to just concentrate housing here in the minority areas not when we live in a food desert not when you have to travel out of the neighborhood to eat healthy or shop. Everyone needs cars to live up these hills . On the weekends you wait for an hour for a bus and after 7 pm there are no more buses so if you have a job that's a 20 to 30 minute walk to reach that area from the trolley and you have to walk some areas with no sidewalk. Why not build housing in areas where people travel over an hour or hour and half by car/ public transportation to get to their jobs. Stop crowding poverty in one spot .
@AbsentMinded619 that's not the point. What I am saying is that this area lacks grocery stores that are in walking distance. Even public transportation is lacking in this area. I welcome you to try to walk in this neighborhood go to work everyday it's hard if you don't have a car. You have to drive to lemon Grove to shop for groceries or our lovely food 4 less that always seems like it's lacking. If you know you know but you would not unless you lived here.
@@SunnyDiegoProduction I understand where he is coming from. It's frustrating to deal with the lack of housing in San Diego. I just know that every single person that would live in that purposed spot would realize that you need a car to move around. Take the kids to a middle school/high school, shop, eat, even fast food is out the ways. I don't think single housing or building a parking lot is the solution there but I think this area needs better public transportation to address the needs of a growing population, jobs in the area and places to buy food that's close .
So just a question - most people say that housing costs are too high. Building more - higher density - housing is the only market driven way to mitigate housing costs. So isn’t opposition to higher density housing just people looking out for their own interests (home value mostly) at the expense of people who need affordable housing?
High value homes on smaller lots will drive up the property value on a per square foot basis on surrounding properties; leading to higher property taxes. This is how you drive legacy home owners out of the market and open up new space for newer, denser developments generating high profits. If this isn't stopped, the community you have now, won't exist in five to ten years.
Ah, NIMBY at its best; I can't believe the guy was arguing for lower density because of environmental concerns when low density sprawl is the worst thing environmentally; why are single-family homes with no mid size buildings allowed. They are just building future problems kick the issues of sprawl to the next generation.
So, the person in charge doesn't know how it happened, the chief of staff of the rep when it passed doesn't know anything. Remove it then. Just take it off. Or is there some other reason these people are just lying?
The Developers wanted to move forward as quickly as possible. break ground on as many houses as possible. to avoid any stop work order, Cause as soon as they able to get those foundation in before the change happens. Those New Houses Get to Stay. They would be Grandfathered in at the 5,000.
I'm upset that you don't understand this project won't fix the problem, these new homes will not be affordable for people who are trying to purchase their first home.
@@bets8863 New housing, even “luxury” housing, reduces rent for everyone else in the housing market. New housing is the effect, not the cause, of rising prices.
5000 sf lots is pretty much the norm in almost all the core communities in the city. My lot in GGH is 5500sf and there are several lots within a block that range from 2600-4000sf, what, exactly, is the issue here?
Building homes doesn’t just impact land. From what I heard, it’s the location that’s the issue more than the lot sizes. But also the environmental impact on the area. Let’s say they build 1000 new houses, most families now days have 2 cars. Let’s say that 750 of those units have 2 cars, that’s 1500 new cars on the roads. That will lead to needing the traffic lights changed, the roads to be repaired or replaced sooner, the extra rubber from tires that’ll end up in water and the extra air pollution. Not to mention they may need to add extra public transportation, the sewer system may need to be upgraded.
There is no infrastructure to support it. And it is discriminatory because the density is staying lower in higher income areas. They are targeting poorer areas. If you don't know what the issue is, you are very ignorant.
This kind of garbage happens in every city whether you know it or not. We recently fought for and won a ruling from the zoning committee to stop a development from being built over the top of our easement. 70 homes down the middle of our driveway essentially. the vote was unanimous. The next week the city council ignored that ruling and approved the development! I went back to the zoning committee and the council and asked why bother have a zoning committee if you were just going to ignore them.
The reduced lot sizes are the same size most cities have; 100 x 50. What's wrong with that? I've owned a house, and that's a decent sized lot. So what's the real reason these people don't want it?
Because the existing home owners were required to have 20K square foot lots instead of 5K, and could have sub-divided and sold 3 houses each if the rules had been the same for them.
Wow, so rich people cry about housing going up and the city steps down like cowards. But when it's not an affluent neighborhood, they should get over it?
@matt45540 We are not trying to control land we do not own; we are questioning how a footnote enabling a 500% increase in density appeared overnight in the Zoning regulations of a single neighborhood. This neighborhood has faced a history of gentrification and systemic racism dating back to World War II. Once a refuge for Japanese families expelled from the City, primarily farmland. Encanto has endured generations of underinvestment, leaving it with the infrastructure suffiecient to barely support its existing families, let alone 500% increase in density. So no we are not trying to control anybody's land!
@@fereshtehirani9921 You know where zoning codes came from, right? They came from Redlining. Lot size minimums came from Redlining. The goal with zoning was to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods. So by trying to preserve the enormous lot size minimums, you're prolonging the racist laws of the past.
People are missing all the impact that new housing developments will have on the rest of the area. It means more cars, the average household has 2 cars. Adding more cars means they could have more traffic, more air pollution, more oil and gas pollution on the ground from leaking cars. Where do you think the waste goes when you flush a toilet? More homes means more water and more waste. The sewer and water systems will need to upgraded for the surrounding areas. They’ll also need to take into account for other services, public transportation, public assistance, extra cops, maybe even relocating the Fire Department or creating a new department.
Similar situation where I live. Recent changes in state law (due to housing shortage) allow for the conversion or building (garages, basements, outbuildings) into living spaces including so-called "tiny homes". The problem is at the local - town level (we do not have county gov't). The towns are hanging on to their zoning 20K sq. ft. rules. Narragansett Bay
Before one more house gets built, all houses under corporate ownership should be immediately revoked and the houses all put back on the market within a year. It would bring home prices way down, boosting homeownership and reducing environmental destruction caused by building new homes.
No one needs a 20,000 s.f.lot. Land is overpriced and you need to get as many homes on a project to keep housing costs lower. If anything the city needs to write laws for projects that increase density and require the developers to build lower priced, affordable homes to get their projects approved.
I would assume that's not a 20,000 sqft lot, it's 20,000 average sq ft in the community including streets, sidewalks etc. And I'm assuming that's what @anthonynicholson5523 meant by "gross" -- gross square feet.
Imagine a private company doing what they want to do with private property. Since housing costs are exorbitant, by all means let's restrict the construction of new housing.
People against low cost housing in their area are also the first to call cops when someone is sleeping outdoors because there is inadequate low cost housing for all the low paid workers serving them.
False. Also, the reason there isn't cheaper housing is because of government interference in the market and ridiculous regulations. Fix that and the problem goes away.
The developers would have to be insane to go forward. When they’re trying to sell those homes, even if they didn’t disclose this issue, which would open them up to Massive lawsuits in the future, the locals would make every prospective buyer very aware that there’s a good chance that the zoning has a good chance of being changed and half or more of the houses would have to be removed.
Large min lot sizes are bad for house prices. Theve been used to keep people out of places. 20k sq ft is almosg half an acre. Build baby build. That how housing with become affordable.
Most of the arguments here are likely from people who don't live in those neighborhoods. But if some land near them were suddenly developed for low-income housing they would be crying just as loudly. The question is why is it less of a requirement in that particular neighborhood than in the rest of the state? Why is it ok to build 4 houses to 1 in a mostly minority neighborhood? Seems rather one sided and the people complaining likely don't live in that neighborhood or just want more sprawl and ghetto possible areas to be built. Unless there is some logical and reasonable account for the change, all areas should be set at the same limit.
I fully support building low-cost housing near my house because I'm not a ghoul who likes to ban other people from having a home. You're saying the people in this video are advocating to upzone everywhere, but they aren't. They're doing just the opposite-- advocating to downzone their neighborhood. Minimum lot sizes were put in place to keep minorities out of white areas. Trying to uphold these arbitrary restrictions is prolonging those racist laws.
@mariusfacktor3597 the person asked a simple question, but you didn't answer it. Why is it only these two areas that were changed by footnote and not the whole city?
So, here's the deal. There is no such thing as "low income development." Why? Because it simply is not profitable. It's why when there are new, major housing developments, folks say, "It will be mixed use." Whereas maybe in an entire development of 100 homes, 6 will be 'dedicated low income'. There is no money in low income housing. Unless it's heavily subsidized, then people complain the government subsidized. A better solution to this "situation" would be for the city to designate something like a 100-year tax abatement for those areas. That would offset the tax based on what will inevitably be a massive rise in home values/tax values. It gives the families in that area time to either plan or sell before the costs become unbearable.
The developers will be given a blank check to build very dense housing that local residents couldn't afford to buy anyway... the city/county just wants maximum tax revenue based on todays inflated housing prices. Meanwhile, the developers and anyone in government with the means to make effective change don't live in the neighborhoods where these types of projects will have a negative impact on the community. This is my neighborhood, BTW.
The reason home prices are so high is because there is a shortage of homes. Nobody is giving a blank check to anybody here. Minimum lot sizes were designed to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods. Small homes do not negatively affect you in any way. It gives teachers and firefighters a chance to own a home. Trying to keep those arbitrary restrictions is just prolonging those racist laws.
Yeah, it's a regulation in the form of a footnote. Underhanded and under the radar. Planning for population growth will require higher density, but slipping a loophole into a zoning code for specific zones only is tantamount to dumping extra housing on neighborhoods without public involvement and due process (proposal, notifications to residents, public comment, public meetings, analysis, public hearings with citizen planning committees, commissions, boards, councils, etc.).
At some point you would think that Americans would finally understand that they don't vote into office people who care about them. They vote into office people who care about themselves.
WHY do city and county governments continue to authorize development in a State, City and County that have Limited resources such as Electricity, Water (this a drought zone) and adequate roads to handle higher density population. (more bike paths are not the answer) Building Moratoriums need to be enacted and imposed on builders and developers all over the state. Water is the KEY. The Colorado river, Lake Mead and Lake Powell are drying up fast due to Being overburdened by over population, excessive landscaping with Non Native species. In Southern California (which is a Coastal Desert) Common Sense development is nowhere to be found. But Government Corruption and out of control Developers with DEEP pockets and Lobbyists are Rampant. Address the power and water issues FIRST or No one will be able to survive in a desert with no water or Power
"We will make you make it less dense somewhere else per this law you are using against us if you go ahead and do this." Yea, they will go ahead and do it. Mark my words. Better to ask forgiveness than permission applies to Everyone.
"It's not zoned for that." Yeah, well it can be. It's called a PUD (Planned Unit Development). It's like a custom zoning code for a specific area. Virtually all jurisdictions have them. Probably yours, too. It literally replaces and over-rides the standard zoning code. Depending on the state, rezones themselves are also often possible. Rezoning is often only an obstacle in Growth Management states (states with Growth Management laws). These make rezoning of land much more difficult. Lastly, most people don't know the difference between "zoning" and "Comprehensive Plan map designations." If you don't understand the difference between these, you don't really have anything to say about zoning anyway.... Because you don't even understand what it is, what it isn't, or what it does.
Traffic will be a bit worse with this. Two-thirds of the county lives south of the 8. Two-thirds of the jobs are north of the 8. The most reasonable free way for the community is the 805. The onramp is Imperial. That area on the 805 is a collective mess and is the main reason for slowing during traffic. There is the 805, 94, 15 interchange mess along with Home, Market, and Imperial Avenue. The stop light on the Imperial Avenue off-ramp starts to back vehicles up to the freeway after 2:30PM. This is what causes the sudden stops going south after the 163 merges. Granted, San Diego needs more housing. ALOT more housing. Definitely more than they are proposing. San Diego County needs over 100k new housing units built every year. How those homes get service is an issue and a reason why basically freezing transportation infrastructure was so detrimental. The capacity of San Diego's roads and public transit network have decreased over the last 10 years. The roads are in undriveable conditions from the lane shrinking and putting band aids on the roads. The trolley has become a mobile home for the homeless. The train stops at downtown instead of going down to the border. When it comes to the greenery, food desert, and heat islands talked about. That guy is speaking out of his ass. Encanto has never been green. It doesn't get much development because the community is poor. Introducing more housing would increase the amount of infrastructure spent in the area. It would make having businesses in the area more profitable rather than having all those empty shops along Imperial.
Easy. city official was paid by a contracting company for the city zoning and building contracts. Its not rocket science. They just didnt expect anyone to catch on.
this was probably blatant corruption by a developer connected.. just add a single sentence that fucks a specific group of people so you reap the benefits
5,000 square foot lots?? That's urban core density, downtown tenement housing density! But on top of a hill. These pols don't care, they won't be personally affected, which makes them complicit in reducing quality of life for existing Encanto residents. Also, these two plans contribute to the continuing "shrinkflation" of housing around the country. #greed
Blocking housing because you're concerned about the neighborhood character is insane. We have a historic housing crisis and these people complaining are simply selfish.
Then let them build densely in your neighborhood. If you can lower the requirement to 5k sq ft per house then you can quadruple housing in La Jolla and other locations. Why is it only good for South San Diego and not all of the other communities. Seems rather one sided.
why is it insane to keep neighborhoods with character? We have a "historic" housing crisis because people (developers) are greedy and cities want more revenue. All these developers have to pay the city for permits and fees that add up to a nice chunk of change.
@@procrastinatingpuma and what exactly does that mean "disconnected from reality" from your reality, because my reality is watching my neighborhood slowly transform to a high rise community with homes that are not affordable.
Wow the San Francisco special: complaining about lack of housing until its their own neighborhood getting the houses, suddenly its no no no we need green spaces and less traffic and landmarks 😂😂😂
Except, if you sell twice as many items that are half the size and half the price, you still only make about the same profit. Of course the numbers are not exactly half etc, but you're not necessarily making twice the profit.
While I agree that something bad has happened with the way that footnote was added, and increased the houses.... I also don't like the idea that --I got my home, leave that privately owned green space, to us, attitude. I would be great to leave that private area as is, but it doesn't belong to the neighbors or the city. Maybe the neighbors should have set up some way to buy all or a portion of it, if they didn't want any sub-division built there. Still, I hope they at least win the reduction in how many homes can be built.
Update: On yesterday, the City Council halted the development. We showed up in NUMBERS...
Good for you!!!!! I hope you keep this up during the trump era. I wish I had a community like yours. You should be proud!
That is wonderful news.
Kudos!!! We The People must always come out in droves to put a halt to such travesties -- now, and always. My sincerest congratulations; you are an inspirational community!!
Dammm, now the council members have to give back random numbered bills.
What a shame, San Diego desperately needs the housing
Money changed hands to make that footnote happen. That money was a bribe paid to a city employee by a developer. Follow the money, find the bribe taker, throw them in jail.
"We promise to address this issue AFTER the damage is already done and you can't change the outcome...as is government tradition."
When you bury it in a footnote….you are, or should be ashamed of it.
Kudos to all those who worked to reveal this legislative sleight-of-hand!
The folks who put footnote 7 together certainly knew what they were doing, counting on state law to drag out any dissenting appeals until their development buddies' checks cleared.
KPBS: great segment! You fit a ton of information in a very short amount of time while still making everything cohesive and understandable -- really good work by your team!
$1000 fee to appeal to the gov't? It's out of control.
to dissuade you from even trying ...same with any laws that are passed it costs millions to get an appeal all the way through lower courts and up to SCOTUS while the Govt is using YOUR tax dollars to fight its own citizens
Sounds like an obstruction of justice
@@2TROLL1 that 1000 is the obstruction!! normally only 25.
Sue , the government cannot place barriers to access , especially an specificaly if they are disabled..find 3 folks on ssd , go class action...
The city always wants to side skirt the issue and when asked questions they never give a definitive answer.
Developers making 4 times the profit. City making 4 times the revenue. At a cost of 4 times the waste, poor air qquality (no vegetation or green spaces), bigger school enrollment, 4 times the trash, traffic congestation, burden on water usage and sewage, and the list goes on and on.
Force the developer to stick to the 20000 fot minimum zoning and abolish footnote #7
then the city expects the air quality boards to cover up the mass pollution created by all those cars that come with those houses. Newsom must be getting a kickback too!
You do realize that with the city getting 4x the revenue they can now pay for 4x the school capacity and 4x the trash pickup, right?
Also, dense housing is literally better for air quality and water usage lol
big minimum lot sizes means we need longer roads, longer pipes, and longer cables between each house. The solution is to build a multi-family building instead of many single-family homes.
One thing to do as homeowner selling their property is to not sell to a private equity developer.
Sell to other people looking to start families. No flippers, either.
If you can, based on your circumstances and needs.
Personal greed is feeding the high housing cost market.
Sometimes they masquerade as a family. It can be hard to tell.
Somebody definitely got a kickback - corruption runs rampant at all levels of government.
Zoning boards are an often overlooked part of our government and people try to get on them as a means to climb political ladders. Then the developers come and run roughshod over them, because they don't want to stop the gravy train. Make sure you have honest qualified people on the zoning board.
We need more houses for the less fortunate! Wait not in my neighborhood!
One or more decision makers are benefitting from this, whether financially, they know the developers, or someone wants to keep "those people" in a certain area. I really admire the local residents are being active in calling this out.
This is what would/will happen. The developers create those neighborhoods. The surrounding home values increase. The taxes in those surrounding neighborhoods increase. The people who live there can no longer afford the taxes and are forced to sell. This happens all over America, especially urban areas. It's how Charlotte and Compton were able to reduce the poor black population. In my opinion, the footnote represents a blatant effort by the city to defraud those people. Especially seeing as it was only applied, specifically, to the poorest areas.
You know what they say; "Follow the money"
Build affordable housing in La Jolla! Stop fooling your respected citizens. We’re not garbage.
Exactly!
What do you consider affordable?
There is no available land in La Jolla.
@@kennixox262 Yes there is, start with La Jolla Country Club and Torrey Pines Golf Course.
@@fereshtehirani9921 Last I checked those are private entities? Do you propose that the government confiscate those properties?
Typical city government response “ let’s wait and hear…”. Corrupt.
Smallest revisions in Planning regulations will have to go through years and decades of process and public hearings in any part of California, for Encanto it happens over night behind the closed doors by corrupt people.
This is a perfect example for Gentrification lead by government authorities. This is systematic racism happening in the finest city in 2024!
Who’s racist here? The people who created and approved the footnote are POC and presumably they were voted in by POC too. And the people protesting it are obviously doing a NIMBY.
well said. I would not be surprised if Montgomery got a kickback from any developers.
Well said!
Stop this non-sense!
👍🏼👍🏼
Sick. As someone who grew up in Encanto, I hate this so much.
They need to stop cramming McMansions on tiny lots!
If you don't take these ppl off the council, they will try and screw you all again. They don't care about you.
These politicians need to be voted out or even better... don't wait and recall and eject them NOW!
How outrageous that a developer would be allowed to build affordable housing on private land!
Look to see who on the city council stands to gain the most from this development. Who is being paid off by the proposed developments. Who has past relationships with the developers. Follow the money.
City residents benefit from the housing but they're too selfish to realize it. Keep restricting density then you'll keep seeing a skyrocketing cost of living. Supply and demand can't work when government is restricting the supply.
Somehow densification is never in Los Altos or Beverly Hills or Newport Beach or La Jolla. And somehow new apartments are always more expensive, not less.
@@eric.nathanson Well said! Thank you
@@fluxcapacitor1621 We are not selfish; we are questioning how a footnote enabling a 500% increase in density appeared overnight in the Zoning regulations of a single neighborhood. This neighborhood has faced a history of gentrification and systemic racism dating back to World War II. Once a refuge for Japanese families expelled from the City, primarily farmland. Encanto has endured generations of underinvestment, leaving it with the infrastructure sufficient to barely support its existing families, let alone 500% increase in density. Maybe you should visit our neighborhood before calling us selfish!
@@fereshtehirani9921
Encanto is one of very few neighborhoods with a trolley station, has excellent connections to practically all freeways, better-than-average roads compared to Stockton or even North Park/Hillcrest, and a lot of fried chicken restaurants. Who cares about Japanese that were bought out over 80 years ago for land that eventually became easement for public infrastructure? Your point is moot, anachronistic, and sounds straight out of a DEI handbook.
"Meanwhile...the developers are moving forward!"
noo no, dont let the private property owners make money off they land they legally own if they do it near my house! its against the free market for the government not to protect my investment!
In California, corruption is always driven by real estate developers.
Upton Sinclair 101
it is that way everywhere.
Prop 19
As in most states. California is not alone. Florida is another good example with far few regulations than California.
@@PaulHolmanIII Probably. He did run for governor here. As a socialist. And lost.
It's not acceptable to just concentrate housing here in the minority areas not when we live in a food desert not when you have to travel out of the neighborhood to eat healthy or shop. Everyone needs cars to live up these hills . On the weekends you wait for an hour for a bus and after 7 pm there are no more buses so if you have a job that's a 20 to 30 minute walk to reach that area from the trolley and you have to walk some areas with no sidewalk. Why not build housing in areas where people travel over an hour or hour and half by car/ public transportation to get to their jobs. Stop crowding poverty in one spot .
So…not in your backyard
@AbsentMinded619 that's not the point. What I am saying is that this area lacks grocery stores that are in walking distance. Even public transportation is lacking in this area. I welcome you to try to walk in this neighborhood go to work everyday it's hard if you don't have a car. You have to drive to lemon Grove to shop for groceries or our lovely food 4 less that always seems like it's lacking. If you know you know but you would not unless you lived here.
@@violetag4062you described it perfectly the first time, the commenter above has zero reading and comprehension skills!
@@SunnyDiegoProduction I understand where he is coming from. It's frustrating to deal with the lack of housing in San Diego. I just know that every single person that would live in that purposed spot would realize that you need a car to move around. Take the kids to a middle school/high school, shop, eat, even fast food is out the ways. I don't think single housing or building a parking lot is the solution there but I think this area needs better public transportation to address the needs of a growing population, jobs in the area and places to buy food that's close .
@@violetag4062
Encanto literally has a trolley station and about 6 bus lines that transect it.
So just a question - most people say that housing costs are too high. Building more - higher density - housing is the only market driven way to mitigate housing costs. So isn’t opposition to higher density housing just people looking out for their own interests (home value mostly) at the expense of people who need affordable housing?
High value homes on smaller lots will drive up the property value on a per square foot basis on surrounding properties; leading to higher property taxes. This is how you drive legacy home owners out of the market and open up new space for newer, denser developments generating high profits. If this isn't stopped, the community you have now, won't exist in five to ten years.
^^^^^ This comment should be pinned.
Ah, NIMBY at its best; I can't believe the guy was arguing for lower density because of environmental concerns when low density sprawl is the worst thing environmentally; why are single-family homes with no mid size buildings allowed. They are just building future problems kick the issues of sprawl to the next generation.
So, the person in charge doesn't know how it happened, the chief of staff of the rep when it passed doesn't know anything. Remove it then. Just take it off. Or is there some other reason these people are just lying?
Someone got PAID to sneak that code change into the system. Follow the money.
The Developers wanted to move forward as quickly as possible. break ground on as many houses as possible. to avoid any stop work order, Cause as soon as they able to get those foundation in before the change happens. Those New Houses Get to Stay. They would be Grandfathered in at the 5,000.
Footnote #7 - good on doing the research...
Low cost housing isn't very popular. i guess they like people being homeless.
Affordable housing? NOT IN MY BACK YARD
Great reporting, thank you!
The government will not help us. We must help ourselves.
So you got yours but won't allow others.
People who already own homes are upset that other people will be afforded the same opportunity. More news at 11.
....but its apparantly okay when dave chappelle does it????
I'm upset that you don't understand this project won't fix the problem, these new homes will not be affordable for people who are trying to purchase their first home.
Tell me, why did you feel the need to lie?
@@bets8863 New housing, even “luxury” housing, reduces rent for everyone else in the housing market. New housing is the effect, not the cause, of rising prices.
@@bets8863Thanks for telling everybody you don’t know how supply and demand works
“Environmental justice affected community.” Nonsense. There is the problem right there.
5000 sf lots is pretty much the norm in almost all the core communities in the city. My lot in GGH is 5500sf and there are several lots within a block that range from 2600-4000sf, what, exactly, is the issue here?
Building homes doesn’t just impact land. From what I heard, it’s the location that’s the issue more than the lot sizes. But also the environmental impact on the area. Let’s say they build 1000 new houses, most families now days have 2 cars. Let’s say that 750 of those units have 2 cars, that’s 1500 new cars on the roads. That will lead to needing the traffic lights changed, the roads to be repaired or replaced sooner, the extra rubber from tires that’ll end up in water and the extra air pollution. Not to mention they may need to add extra public transportation, the sewer system may need to be upgraded.
There is no infrastructure to support it. And it is discriminatory because the density is staying lower in higher income areas. They are targeting poorer areas. If you don't know what the issue is, you are very ignorant.
This kind of garbage happens in every city whether you know it or not. We recently fought for and won a ruling from the zoning committee to stop a development from being built over the top of our easement. 70 homes down the middle of our driveway essentially. the vote was unanimous. The next week the city council ignored that ruling and approved the development! I went back to the zoning committee and the council and asked why bother have a zoning committee if you were just going to ignore them.
The reduced lot sizes are the same size most cities have; 100 x 50. What's wrong with that? I've owned a house, and that's a decent sized lot. So what's the real reason these people don't want it?
because it will put stress on the area's infrastructure, more cars on the roads traveling to and from these houses. It's not just about the lot size!
Because the existing home owners were required to have 20K square foot lots instead of 5K, and could have sub-divided and sold 3 houses each if the rules had been the same for them.
@@bets8863Increased property tax revenue will be able to pay for it.
@@nunyadayumbusiness591They can still do that
“Meanwhile, the developers are moving forward.” 😔 This is happening ALL over the U.S. 💔
People need to stop trying to control the land they don't own
Wow, so rich people cry about housing going up and the city steps down like cowards. But when it's not an affluent neighborhood, they should get over it?
@matt45540 We are not trying to control land we do not own; we are questioning how a footnote enabling a 500% increase in density appeared overnight in the Zoning regulations of a single neighborhood. This neighborhood has faced a history of gentrification and systemic racism dating back to World War II. Once a refuge for Japanese families expelled from the City, primarily farmland. Encanto has endured generations of underinvestment, leaving it with the infrastructure suffiecient to barely support its existing families, let alone 500% increase in density. So no we are not trying to control anybody's land!
@@fereshtehirani9921 You know where zoning codes came from, right? They came from Redlining. Lot size minimums came from Redlining. The goal with zoning was to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods. So by trying to preserve the enormous lot size minimums, you're prolonging the racist laws of the past.
@@fereshtehirani9921 Your opposition to additional housing is actively hurting people. Please stop.
@@TheCkap35 I seriously doubt this is the ONLY reason, how about the greed of developers and landlords that keep housing costs rising?
So, you hate other people being able to have homes also.. got it
Oh I know all about the rabbit holes with these lawyers and government types.
People are missing all the impact that new housing developments will have on the rest of the area. It means more cars, the average household has 2 cars. Adding more cars means they could have more traffic, more air pollution, more oil and gas pollution on the ground from leaking cars.
Where do you think the waste goes when you flush a toilet? More homes means more water and more waste. The sewer and water systems will need to upgraded for the surrounding areas. They’ll also need to take into account for other services, public transportation, public assistance, extra cops, maybe even relocating the Fire Department or creating a new department.
Be sure to direct all homeless people to that neighborhood
Should build MORE housing there!
Similar situation where I live. Recent changes in state law (due to housing shortage) allow for the conversion or building (garages, basements, outbuildings) into living spaces including so-called "tiny homes". The problem is at the local - town level (we do not have county gov't). The towns are hanging on to their zoning 20K sq. ft. rules. Narragansett Bay
I would tear my house down, build four new ones, sell them to a REIT/landlord, and cash out.
The only bad thing about this footnote is that it doesn’t apply to the entirety of San Diego.
Before one more house gets built, all houses under corporate ownership should be immediately revoked and the houses all put back on the market within a year. It would bring home prices way down, boosting homeownership and reducing environmental destruction caused by building new homes.
Especially the ones sitting empty.
No one needs a 20,000 s.f.lot. Land is overpriced and you need to get as many homes on a project to keep housing costs lower. If anything the city needs to write laws for projects that increase density and require the developers to build lower priced, affordable homes to get their projects approved.
Gross
Disgusting.
I'm curious. How much did you get paid to write that comment?
I would assume that's not a 20,000 sqft lot, it's 20,000 average sq ft in the community including streets, sidewalks etc. And I'm assuming that's what @anthonynicholson5523 meant by "gross" -- gross square feet.
Deregulate zoning or the housing crisis won't get better
Imagine a private company doing what they want to do with private property. Since housing costs are exorbitant, by all means let's restrict the construction of new housing.
People against low cost housing in their area are also the first to call cops when someone is sleeping outdoors because there is inadequate low cost housing for all the low paid workers serving them.
False. Also, the reason there isn't cheaper housing is because of government interference in the market and ridiculous regulations. Fix that and the problem goes away.
The developers would have to be insane to go forward. When they’re trying to sell those homes, even if they didn’t disclose this issue, which would open them up to
Massive lawsuits in the future, the locals would make every prospective buyer very aware that there’s a good chance that the zoning has a good chance of being changed and half or more of the houses would have to be removed.
Large min lot sizes are bad for house prices. Theve been used to keep people out of places. 20k sq ft is almosg half an acre. Build baby build. That how housing with become affordable.
Nimbys back at it
Who did some developer pay to persuade a city attorney or city council member to put that footnote in the document? It wasn't a misprint?
Most of the arguments here are likely from people who don't live in those neighborhoods. But if some land near them were suddenly developed for low-income housing they would be crying just as loudly. The question is why is it less of a requirement in that particular neighborhood than in the rest of the state? Why is it ok to build 4 houses to 1 in a mostly minority neighborhood? Seems rather one sided and the people complaining likely don't live in that neighborhood or just want more sprawl and ghetto possible areas to be built. Unless there is some logical and reasonable account for the change, all areas should be set at the same limit.
Well said! 👍🏼
I fully support building low-cost housing near my house because I'm not a ghoul who likes to ban other people from having a home. You're saying the people in this video are advocating to upzone everywhere, but they aren't. They're doing just the opposite-- advocating to downzone their neighborhood. Minimum lot sizes were put in place to keep minorities out of white areas. Trying to uphold these arbitrary restrictions is prolonging those racist laws.
@mariusfacktor3597 the person asked a simple question, but you didn't answer it. Why is it only these two areas that were changed by footnote and not the whole city?
So, here's the deal. There is no such thing as "low income development." Why? Because it simply is not profitable. It's why when there are new, major housing developments, folks say, "It will be mixed use." Whereas maybe in an entire development of 100 homes, 6 will be 'dedicated low income'. There is no money in low income housing. Unless it's heavily subsidized, then people complain the government subsidized. A better solution to this "situation" would be for the city to designate something like a 100-year tax abatement for those areas. That would offset the tax based on what will inevitably be a massive rise in home values/tax values. It gives the families in that area time to either plan or sell before the costs become unbearable.
The developers will be given a blank check to build very dense housing that local residents couldn't afford to buy anyway... the city/county just wants maximum tax revenue based on todays inflated housing prices. Meanwhile, the developers and anyone in government with the means to make effective change don't live in the neighborhoods where these types of projects will have a negative impact on the community. This is my neighborhood, BTW.
I grew up in Encanto and I'm furious. This is so enraging.
The reason home prices are so high is because there is a shortage of homes. Nobody is giving a blank check to anybody here. Minimum lot sizes were designed to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods. Small homes do not negatively affect you in any way. It gives teachers and firefighters a chance to own a home. Trying to keep those arbitrary restrictions is just prolonging those racist laws.
Yeah, it's a regulation in the form of a footnote. Underhanded and under the radar. Planning for population growth will require higher density, but slipping a loophole into a zoning code for specific zones only is tantamount to dumping extra housing on neighborhoods without public involvement and due process (proposal, notifications to residents, public comment, public meetings, analysis, public hearings with citizen planning committees, commissions, boards, councils, etc.).
At some point you would think that Americans would finally understand that they don't vote into office people who care about them. They vote into office people who care about themselves.
No such thing as affordable housing
housing? he meant increased property tax revenues.
I guarantee the guy talking about air quality only cares about it when it affects his home values
Nothing wrong with that.
More likely he cares about it when it effects his ability to breathe.
Too bad people need housing!
Not gonna be so much an issue after the deportations...
People need AFFORDABLE housing! New homes built in San Diego area are not affordable and put more stress on the infrastructure.
@@bets8863 yep - that's part of the globalist agenda that Trump dawg will be going after
educate yourself and fight for what is right. The state of california has a Housing Accountability Office. email them and file a complaint.
Welcome to California!
WHY do city and county governments continue to authorize development in a State, City and County that have Limited resources such as Electricity, Water (this a drought zone) and adequate roads to handle higher density population. (more bike paths are not the answer) Building Moratoriums need to be enacted and imposed on builders and developers all over the state.
Water is the KEY. The Colorado river, Lake Mead and Lake Powell are drying up fast due to Being overburdened by over population, excessive landscaping with Non Native species.
In Southern California (which is a Coastal Desert) Common Sense development is nowhere to be found.
But Government Corruption and out of control Developers with DEEP pockets and Lobbyists are Rampant.
Address the power and water issues FIRST or No one will be able to survive in a desert with no water or Power
Sounds to me like they were trying to duck the NIMBYs, but NIMBYs gonna NIMBY. Just don't ask where their kids will ever own a house.
Heavily Dense Housing building housing projects to many people in one area.Affordable Housing needs to be spread out all over different cities .
We have a big state. We should collectively manage this, and also allow for good quality of life for current residents at the same time.
You're literally describing a City versus a rural area. There's plenty of room for people in cities if we got rid of all the cars they needed
@@matt45540Yeah, if only they would focus on bettering public transportation for everyone, which they won't.
It shouldn’t have to take courage to challenge the government.
That's awful that they are being ignored. Please keep on trying to get justice.
"We will make you make it less dense somewhere else per this law you are using against us if you go ahead and do this." Yea, they will go ahead and do it. Mark my words. Better to ask forgiveness than permission applies to Everyone.
Says the rapist.
Develop UP, not out!
"It's not zoned for that." Yeah, well it can be. It's called a PUD (Planned Unit Development). It's like a custom zoning code for a specific area. Virtually all jurisdictions have them. Probably yours, too. It literally replaces and over-rides the standard zoning code. Depending on the state, rezones themselves are also often possible. Rezoning is often only an obstacle in Growth Management states (states with Growth Management laws). These make rezoning of land much more difficult. Lastly, most people don't know the difference between "zoning" and "Comprehensive Plan map designations." If you don't understand the difference between these, you don't really have anything to say about zoning anyway.... Because you don't even understand what it is, what it isn't, or what it does.
Everyone is for cheap housing for the poor until it comes to their neighborhood.
Traffic will be a bit worse with this. Two-thirds of the county lives south of the 8. Two-thirds of the jobs are north of the 8. The most reasonable free way for the community is the 805. The onramp is Imperial. That area on the 805 is a collective mess and is the main reason for slowing during traffic. There is the 805, 94, 15 interchange mess along with Home, Market, and Imperial Avenue. The stop light on the Imperial Avenue off-ramp starts to back vehicles up to the freeway after 2:30PM. This is what causes the sudden stops going south after the 163 merges.
Granted, San Diego needs more housing. ALOT more housing. Definitely more than they are proposing. San Diego County needs over 100k new housing units built every year. How those homes get service is an issue and a reason why basically freezing transportation infrastructure was so detrimental. The capacity of San Diego's roads and public transit network have decreased over the last 10 years. The roads are in undriveable conditions from the lane shrinking and putting band aids on the roads. The trolley has become a mobile home for the homeless. The train stops at downtown instead of going down to the border.
When it comes to the greenery, food desert, and heat islands talked about. That guy is speaking out of his ass. Encanto has never been green. It doesn't get much development because the community is poor. Introducing more housing would increase the amount of infrastructure spent in the area. It would make having businesses in the area more profitable rather than having all those empty shops along Imperial.
Easy. city official was paid by a contracting company for the city zoning and building contracts. Its not rocket science. They just didnt expect anyone to catch on.
this was probably blatant corruption by a developer connected.. just add a single sentence that fucks a specific group of people so you reap the benefits
Check bank accounts and things cause someone got paid to put that in there !!
Something going on - it is money. But really, single-family houses is so 1950s. Build upwards.
They tried that in the 60's. High rise housing was such a nightmare. Most have been torn down at this point.
Who was bribed.
5,000 square foot lots?? That's urban core density, downtown tenement housing density! But on top of a hill. These pols don't care, they won't be personally affected, which makes them complicit in reducing quality of life for existing Encanto residents. Also, these two plans contribute to the continuing "shrinkflation" of housing around the country. #greed
Municipalities and cities and counties NEED income to give themselves raises.
Blocking housing because you're concerned about the neighborhood character is insane. We have a historic housing crisis and these people complaining are simply selfish.
Then let them build densely in your neighborhood. If you can lower the requirement to 5k sq ft per house then you can quadruple housing in La Jolla and other locations. Why is it only good for South San Diego and not all of the other communities. Seems rather one sided.
why is it insane to keep neighborhoods with character? We have a "historic" housing crisis because people (developers) are greedy and cities want more revenue. All these developers have to pay the city for permits and fees that add up to a nice chunk of change.
We have a housing pricing crisis, not a housing crisis. There are something like twenty empty houses for every homeless person.
@@bets8863Your comment is disconnected from reality
@@procrastinatingpuma and what exactly does that mean "disconnected from reality" from your reality, because my reality is watching my neighborhood slowly transform to a high rise community with homes that are not affordable.
Who in the city is getting kick back money from the developers? Follow the money trail.
Environmental justice community🙄
Stop crying not your land
Not to exaggerate, but it’s Black women doing grassroots work who are working to save our democracy. And the developers still moving forward. Grrrr.
Wow the San Francisco special: complaining about lack of housing until its their own neighborhood getting the houses, suddenly its no no no we need green spaces and less traffic and landmarks 😂😂😂
Sooooo no one got tarred and feathered?
Twice the houses gives somebody 200% profit - from nothing.most city councils are populated by real estate investors, or their spouses.
Except, if you sell twice as many items that are half the size and half the price, you still only make about the same profit. Of course the numbers are not exactly half etc, but you're not necessarily making twice the profit.
While I agree that something bad has happened with the way that footnote was added, and increased the houses.... I also don't like the idea that --I got my home, leave that privately owned green space, to us, attitude.
I would be great to leave that private area as is, but it doesn't belong to the neighbors or the city. Maybe the neighbors should have set up some way to buy all or a portion of it, if they didn't want any sub-division built there. Still, I hope they at least win the reduction in how many homes can be built.
Build houses. No, not like that
Stop complaining people we need more housing, if you dont like it move.😮