People are far more likely to leave for cheaper housing prices than income taxes. Funny enough they end up paying some of the highest property tax rates in the country.

Trust me, you still come out WAY ahead. lol

Or maybe job opportunities on top of cheaper housing?

Detroit and Cleveland have cheap housing but anemic growth because the economy isn't good.

"But that's different! People are going to move out because of the cold weather!"

New Orleans metro has good weather but it isn't growing terribly fast either, because the economy there isn't good.

"Yeah, New Orleans has good weather until it floods, so it's the floods scaring people away!"

Greater Houston flooded during Harvey, and it's still growing fast. It so happens that Greater Houston has a stronger economy than NOLA or the Rust Belt.

So yes, corporate growth matters. Even if San Diego became super YIMBY from now on, the business unfriendly policies of California would continue to drive businesses away from the state.

And the latest in taxation: SANDAG proposes charging builders more to build in sprawly suburbs than in the urban core.

I mean SANDAG has some great ideas for transit (the airport APM) but this is not one of them. This will only add to the cost of housing. Families with kids won't choose a Downtown apartment instead of a suburban SFH, because Downtown (and Mission Valley) have poor public schools. They're going to pack up and move to the suburbs of Dallas where they'll contribute to even more suburban sprawl.

That's why I believe improving inner city education and quality of life to attract families is one of the biggest tools in our arsenal to fight sprawl. Lots of families would love to not have to drive everywhere and upkeep a gigantic SFH. Problem is dense urban areas in the US are overwhelmingly filled with failing schools, high crime, and/or homelessness. So families see no choice but to live in the burbs.

Tailgate Park Now Residential
 

Hot off the press!

San Diego Padres offer $35M for Tailgate Park, planning $1.5B residential project
BY JENNIFER VAN GROVE
MARCH 3, 2022 2:29 PM PT
The San Diego Union-Tribune

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...ential-project

Wouldn’t for me, but I wouldn’t be significantly downgrading my quality of home just to live in Texas to avoid income taxes on my salary.

The significant majority of people will say cost of living and cheaper housing is the number 1 reason they move, followed by a job.

Most families don’t live in downtowns around the country is some combination of space and schools. It’s hard to afford space in downtowns, and for decades we have subsidized highways and the growth of those suburbs with more space. Personally I would stop subsidizing that type of growth and put that money towards schools and affordable housing.

If we want TOD, how much will more condos and apartments contribute to transit ridership?

I have a hunch that all these new condo/apartment towers are filled with a lot more remote workers and rich retirees than in your average neighborhood. Am I right? Because remote workers and retirees tend not to take many trips and therefore don't contribute to ridership.

Some text/pics from the article below. For what it's worth, it calls out the reasoning for the office-to-housing change:

Padres development team offers $35M for Tailgate Park, plans $1.5B residential project
March 3, 2022
Jennifer Van Grove

https://archive.ph/Lpxco/7813027d3fb...0d78ee13b.webp

https://archive.ph/Lpxco/048ad713edd...f55e89ee5.webp

Aha, so yes, Tailgate Park is not going to be very successful TOD because if you live in a high end condo you'll probably be teleworking, not commuting.

I know post-COVID, teleworking is big.

But look at Austin. It's still getting a ton of office skyscrapers. Maybe not as much as it would if COVID never happened, but still a lot.

Which shows that if San Diego wants more office TOD, it's going to need to economically diversify beyond tourism and bring big corps who will demand big campuses near transit. Turns out NIMBYs may be bad but the biggest barrier to office TOD isn't NIMBYs, it's California's businesses hostile policies that curb office demand. Little office demand means developers build less office. Simple.

Welcome to the SD forum, San Diego isn't Irvine or Austin.

Thank goodness.

OK... we GET IT. You can stop parroting the CA hostile policies thing. We heard you. No one wants to get into a political debate on here.

As far as office/residential goes, I go with the option that brings down the cost of housing.

More condos, increases supply, lowers prices.

Right?

Bravo

Not trying to sound negative but although building more housing will ease some of the demand I’d say the ship has sailed long ago for affordability in San Diego. You’d have to go back several decades for affordability in this city. We are heading into San Francisco market pricing with the makeup of the city changing with the pricing and times. There’s only so much land on or close to ocean and we are sitting on prime real estate here without all the headaches that some of our neighbors up north face…

If you use the home sale price to income ratio, we're the least affordable metro in the nation, passing up San Francisco this year, with the highest utility rates too.

Average income is $68,000. Median home price January $764,000.

Why are incomes in SD so low? Is it just because SD is very tourism dependent? What about tech jobs, are you paid less in SD vs in LA?

Is 7th/Market (Ritz Carlton hotel project) dead?

I can’t believe that prime site is STILL a surface parking lot.

At what point can new plans be worked on? This is turning into another Manchester disaster. That prime bay front land rotted for years and years while Manchester sat on it with his lofty plans, then when he finally started his big development he couldn’t even finish it.

"It must be NIMBYs!" JK. It's probably market forces. I really wonder if the hotel market is oversaturated with the new Seaport Village and Gaylord Pacific resorts, and that might turn 7th and Market into more residential.

I have always thought that that's a strange place to have a luxurious brand like the Ritz Carlton.
Waterfront - nope.
Gaslamp - nope.
Fronting a large city park - nope.
Near the convention center - nope.
Near the core of office towers and courts - nope.
Busy, street with busses - yep.
Homeless, street people presence - yep.

I would scrap the Ritz and replace it with something that will work right away. A mixed use, apartments, maybe a smaller boutique hotel with ground floor retail.