voiceofsandiego.org: Letters... Save Hillcrest!
an independent nonprofit |
March to 1,000 Members: 991 so far. Contribute today.

Save Hillcrest!

By Andrew Towne, Hillcrest



Thursday, Feb. 15, 2007 | I note that the latest issue of "The Saldaña Sun" n the newsletter of Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña -- has an article on affordable housing and an enclosure from the DMV announcing the possible construction of a high-rise on the DMV site on Normal Street.

With regard to affordable housing: I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't cause problems like bringing high-density development to neighborhoods that cannot put in new roads and find additional space to accommodate all the newcomers.

 I chose to live in Hillcrest because it was a quiet, mostly residential neighborhood of one and two-story houses, condos and apartment buildings with generous set-backs for lawns and gardens.

 The neighborhood was walkable, quiet at night, and pretty to look at, with interesting historic architecture and unique, locally-based mom-and-pop businesses.

 There was plenty of space, light, great views of Balboa Park, downtown, the bay and the ocean, and enough private outdoor living space to allow one to take advantage of San Diego's climate. 

 Free parking was readily available, and there was no traffic gridlock.

 In other words, I chose to live in Hillcrest, because it was not a concrete jungle like downtown.

 And I never imagined that it would become an extension of downtown with high-rises, etc., because it was surrounded by canyons and filled with dead-end streets and windy hillside roads.

 Well, I was wrong.

 The San Diego mayor, City Council, planning commission and planning department have demonstrated over the last few years that they want to put high-density, high-rise development into Hillcrest and make it a mini-version of downtown San Diego.

 Never mind that fire trucks and ambulances already have difficulty getting through blocked intersections thanks to backed up traffic. Never mind that all this high density development would reduce the quality of life of current residents.

 It turns out that our pubic officials (federal, state and local) are bowing down to a new religion called "smart growth," which promises to provide unlimited affordable housing AND save the environment by shifting new development from the suburbs to the inner city, "densifying" neighborhoods like Hillcrest.

 Taken to its logical conclusion, this process would recreate the overcrowded nineteenth century tenement slums that most of our ancestors couldn't wait to get out of.

 I think there is a better solution to the problem of affordable housing.

 First, put the problem in perspective.

 The oft repeated claim that housing prices in San Diego "have left the majority of middle class residents without the ability to purchase what has been the primary investment and source of capital for ordinary people" (quoted from your article) is -- with all due respect -- untrue. 

 Many if not most middle class San Diegans already own homes. They can stay in those homes, or purchase other homes with the equity they've built up in the homes they already own.

 So there is no "affordable housing crisis" for those people.

 

The affordability problem pertains only to those who do not own houses and want to own them.

And it should be noted that not all people want to own houses even if they can afford to own them. 

What about the young people of San Diego who want to own homes here but lack the capital and income needed to do so?

This might sound harsh (although it's not; it's perfectly in keeping with traditional American concepts of mobility and seeking out opportunity), but they should move to parts of the country where they can afford to buy a home on their relatively low income.

There are parts of this country where houses cost less than $100,000. Sometimes a lot less.

They are located in the midwest and the south.

 Kansas City might not be the glamour capital of the world.

 It might not have 300 days of sunshine a year.

 But it is a perfectly fine and livable city.

 The same applies to Oklahoma City, St. Louis, etc.

As for firefighters, police officers and teachers, the market place is the best way to solve the problem of affordability for them.

When enough police officers quit and leave San Diego, the city will realize that it needs to raise salaries for police officers and do so.

Aspen, Colorado, had a problem retaining waiters, bellhops, ski instructors, etc., and so had to raise their salaries (and offer them free vacations to Hawaii.)

There is no reason for the government to intervene in the workings of the marketplace in this regard.

Please, at least help me save Hillcrest and the neighborhoods around Balboa Park.You owe it to the community you represent.




8 Comments so far on this story...

High housing prices hurts business. As labor gets scarce it gets expensive and as it gets expensive San Diego companies have to raise prices and that gets passed on to the consumers. Of course, there is alternative to raising prices: outsourcing.

Posted by Ivan | reply to this comment
February 16, 2007 8:30 am

Please see Pat Flannery's blog for the lastest on creating skyscraper in every neighborhood of San Diego http://www.blogofsandiego.com/ There is still time to fight the distruction of the 30 foot height limit, but we need the help of the City Council to postpone this issue before unintended consequences occur. Addition info: and

Posted by Katheryn Rhodes and Conrad Har | reply to this comment
February 16, 2007 9:11 am

"The oft repeated claim that housing prices in San Diego "have left the majority of middle class residents without the ability to purchase what has been the primary investment and source of capital for ordinary people" (quoted from your article) is -- with all due respect -- untrue.Many if not most middle class San Diegans already own homes." With all due respect...as a single person who earns the median income for the San Diego region, I don't own a home, nor do most of my friends in the same situation/income bracket. Nor do I see much available to me.

Posted by Katie | reply to this comment
February 16, 2007 1:32 pm

(cont'd)Perhaps my friends and I (all college to post-college educated) are not representative of a significant population of the city, but the idea that it would be better for us and the community at large, for us to all move to Kansas or another area with lower housing costs is not necessarily beneficial to the community at large or the individuals involved. I grew up here, have one of my degrees from a local university. What does it say about the local economy (housing and salary) that someone like myself has a difficult time living a middle class life here?

Posted by Katie | reply to this comment
February 16, 2007 1:42 pm

Cont'd I agree that not everyone wants to be a homeowner, nor can the economy necessarily support that. But when a large section of the population (>85%) not be able to afford the median price of a home, that should be a concern. I am not sure what Mr. Towne wants - an aging population of homeowners along with an underpaid population to support them as companies and educated workers leave the region, perhaps? - but I am not sure that he has thought through his hypothesis.

Posted by Katie | reply to this comment
February 16, 2007 1:47 pm

Katie: it says that with all your degrees you still failed to master the English language. If you can't figure out what I mean, think "myself."

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
February 25, 2007 2:44 am

Edgar, if that is the best you have to offer, contact somebody at the Union Fibune to print your Spew. That is about all you or that paper has to offer worth reading!

Posted by R.W. | reply to this comment
February 28, 2007 7:50 am

"High housing prices hurt business". No. If you own a cafe and pay minimum wage, your employees can't afford even a $100,000 house. But we still have cafes. Your employees adjust. They have roommates and they rent instead of own. Young people who make good salaries but can't afford a home? I'm not saying they should leave, just don't expect a housing subsidy. And again, it's not true that 85% can't afford a home here, since at least 50% own homes! "I can't afford a house -- let's overdevelop San Diego!" No, thanks. Live well in Houston, don't ruin SD!

Posted by Andrew Towne | reply to this comment
March 4, 2007 5:58 pm


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
74e03f5



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.