bubbleinfo.com

The middle school site is owned by SDUHSD and Pacific View is owned by EUSD so those are two different entities.

With that said the rumor is that SDUHSD is looking to rezone and develop the LCV property into low income housing and possibly add 2,000 residents in an area where the current schools are maxed out. Where would the children go to school? It doesn't make sense, but will the city of Carlsbad realize this? Do they make some kind of deal with the San Marcos school district? I wouldn't put anything past these guys.

"Will the school district attempt to joint venture with a developer and build out the school site into money-making homes or other? They are doing it elsewhere."

There's someplace in SD County where somebody is still managing to build homes that make money? Where?

GeneK,

People built homes profitably when prices were 1/3 of what they are now, and with some higher input prices (lumber).

Many developers got fat (which is why there are about 4X as many as the area needs now) and lazy. There are plenty of ways to make money in real estate, even through a down market, even the worst of markets. Most of the value of property is tied up in land values, which are the most volatile. Land can shed 90% of its value pretty quickly.

I am a LCV homeowner who has no allegiance to either “side.” I went to the meeting last night. What I learned is that the fact is: the property in question sits right in the middle of our community. It is in the entire community’s interest (both quality of life and economic) to work with the SDUHSD now to try to figure out a suitable use for the property that will both benefit SDUHSD and not harm the quality of life and economic interest of each homeowner in LCV. The best and most effective way to do that is to ask our LCV HOA to get involved with that process. Individual homeowners, such as the FONC, etc, have little to no voice or power in the face of SDUHSD. There is more incentive, on the other hand, for SDUHSD to work with the HOA as it represents the voice of the entire community (1100+ homes). In addition, there are several other HOAs who may have interest in this issue (ie, La Costa Oaks, Rancho Ponderosa, Fieldstone, etc) because they either pay in to the Mello Roos bond that was used to buy the property or are within geographic proximity of the property. Through aligning with these groups, the SDUHSD may be compelled still further to work together right now with these communities, as they are the ones that will be directly affected by any decision that is made. I didn't count how many homeowners were there, but it was a standing room only crowd. One homeowner who spoke had gathered 350 LCV homeowner’s signatures by himself - all of which stated that they want the LCV Board to get involved on behalf of the community. This was a powerful statement. At the end of the evening a vote was taken, which appeared to be unanimous on two issues: first, creating a LCV HOA Board Committee that would begin acting now to be a conduit for information for the entire community and work on strategies to outline what the next step might be and, second: authorizing the LCV Board to pursue modifying the CCRs so that there was is no ambiguity as to whether the LCV HOA can use the resources of the community to pursue this issue. Finally, the most compelling argument to me was the hypothetical scenario in which the LCV community might buy the land and just keep it as is. Under this scenario something like the following might be a possibility. SDUHSD agrees to sell the land to the LCV Homeowners Association for $50 million. As part of the agreement they cancel future payments by the LCV community on $800 per year Mello Roos bond (they agree to take over our payments), which upon its inception raised approximately $25 million. The community takes on a new debt obligation over 35 years of $50 million, or roughly double the current Mello Roos payment of $800 per year, or $1600 a year. This would increase each homeowner’s bill roughly $66 per month with the effect of gaining ownership of the property outright and then doing nothing with it (just leaving it as open space). I would certainly pay $66 more per month to guarantee that outcome, as the reality of the worst case scenario (low income, high density housing) will have a much greater negative financial (in terms of housing values) and quality of life (traffic, further overcrowding of ECC, increased crime, inundation of the community facilities including the Valley Club, etc) effect than that. This is just my opinion though. There are likely points I am missing from the meeting. Others who were there feel free to correct or chime in. Thanks.

Thanks for the report, Report.

What can we do? Were there any directives for citizens to carry out, or ways to get involved?

Or just stay tuned and participate when needed?

pardon my cynicism. I've been both sides of this table. The school district is playing Cleavon Little in "Blazing Saddles." They've taken themselves hostage and are threatening to shoot. The community is paying for this property already. The deal with the district was for a school. No school, no deal and the land reverts to the people who paid for it and they can stop paying and keep ownership and do with it what they wish. It isn't quite that ownership simple but it is closer to my description than the position the school district is taking by continuing to levy Mello-Roos and attempting to sell the same property again and still collect the original Mello-Roos.

I guess the lesson here would be that “premium” you think justifies overpaying for a home is never guaranteed. It can be gone tomorrow but you are stuck with your payment for 30 years.

I think the “premium” was lost when they built up that area, it was much nicer when it used to be an area to ride my dirtbike…..

To Jim: My impression was that any current homeowner in LCV would be updated in the next LCV HOA community newsletter (at this website: lacostavalleyhoa.com). If one was an interested citizen outside of being an owner, my impression was that the best thing to do would be to email the Friends of North County group and get on their email list, which they use for periodic updates: mail@friendsofnorthcounty.org
To Rob Dawg: I agree… but in reality no one has enough resources to fight SDUHSD's attorneys, who are funded through a joint consortium of all county schools (ie, JPA and Shinoff, et al). They have an unlimited fund of money and can run anyone in to the ground. I tend to agree with the concept of keeping our eyes on the prize, even if getting it costs us money we shouldn't "have to" morally pay. Holding out for the principle most likely means losing. The lack of oversight in this case borders on criminal, but at this point who wants to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Whatever.
To SMC: I think you are right. A lot of folks, myself included, allocated a price premium in our minds when buying in LCV because it was marketed as one of the few communities where kids could walk to elementary, junior high, and high school. Yes, there was a sign advertising a future junior high at the dirt driveway to the property when we bought our house. Yes, I even called SDUHSD prior to opening escrow and they confirmed that plans were in place. It was a leap of faith based on reasonable information that I think most people wouldn't make again. It's hard to say what that premium really was, however. It certainly doesn't exist now and yet I haven’t seen house prices in LCV reflecting a sudden discount because of that. In fact, they are among the most stubborn in coastal North County. That may now change, but my instinct is that that was already priced in (price premium removed) 1+ years ago when the sign came down and the district met with the HOA members and said there wasn't the enrollment to justify a new junior high. I was at that meeting too and the gasps, anger, and outrage was palpable. When Carlsbad City Council Member Mark Packard stood up in that meeting and said SDUHSD Superintendant Peggy Lynch and one of the SDUSHD had already met with him weeks before to inquire about the process to sell and rezone the property people fell out of their chairs ---especially as two other SDUHSD Board members were sitting right there in the room denying that a meeting like that could have ever taken place because everything school districts do are bound by laws of transparency. Yeah right. One of the Board Members basically accused Council Member Packard of lying. As I walked out I heard the SDUHSD JPA Attorney Dan Shinoff saying to them “you guys really shouldn’t be saying these things publically.” Nice transparency. Bottom line: this community is still way over priced – but so is every other community like it in this area. The question now in my mind is what becomes of that property and how will potential buyer’s and seller’s guess about what that property might become influence future values. Obviously if it is left untouched and becomes an asset to the community that yields a very different answer than if they build 800 low income apartments there. Regardless, most “locals” agree that no matter what happens nothing will better than what was once all open space dirt bike trails. Having jogged through the preserve area that is set aside above La Costa Oaks, I can’t say I disagree with that local sentiment either.

Good report, Mr./Mrs. "Report", very balanced and objective.
Attendees were all left a lot of unanswered questions.
Dawg got it right that it's likely that the school district might just want to profit both ways. SDUHSD spans Carlsbad to Carmel Valley, and I bet there would be an uproar if they forgave the Mello-Roos for one area. Anyway, it appears the money was allocated to other things besides a middle school.
The math of $66 per unit per month that "Report" suggests is one scenario, yet may be optimistic.
Another scenario involved a simple one-time assessment to each homeowner, which for a $50-$70 million property divided by a thousand or so homes comes to $50,000-$70,000 each. That would be for each homeowner to pay or finance in case the HOA can't float its own bond.
There's also the matter of legal fees. Who fronts those?
There are a lot of what-ifs in the various scenarios.
The new Board & FONC get points for showmanship, as the meeting was well-choreographed.
The votes seemed unanimous because the HOA dispensed with the usual formalities and didn't call for any opposing "nay" votes.
It was almost like the movie "Miracle on 34th Street" the way the guy brought out the 350 signatures and poured them on the Board's table. By the way, they looked like the same petitions which were on the tables at the last two FONC meetings.
Then, after the board voted on forming a committee, the newly-appointed Board president nominated 4 FONC members to be on that committee. I'm trying to see both sides, but like the homeowner who voiced concern about that, it just gave me the impression that it's more of a FONC thing than really the HOA representing the interests of all homeowners.
There were a couple other items that came up in the meeting.
If the Board can't get the required 2/3 positive vote to amend the by-laws to expand the scope of the HOA to go after whomever for whatever (another small unclear item not stated at the meeting), then the new Board president raised the prospect that the Board could go to court to force a decision from a judge bypassing the homeowners.
If the school district decides to sell the property, supposedly the first right of refusal would go to the master developer.
Some homeowners asked why only go after SDUHSD for advertising a future middle school when the neighborhood developers (KB Home, Shea, Greystone/Lennar, K. Hovnanian, Centex, etc.) were promising the same thing.
In any case, it's a long process ahead, and if this thing gets muddy, you can bet property values will feel an extra bite - and that includes all the neighborhoods mentioned nearby and within the same Mello-Roos boundaries. (La Costa Oaks, Rancho Ponderosa, Santa Fe Trails, etc.)

The best comment of the night was one guy's concern that the thing would get out of control. He got a lot of applause when he requested that the change to the by-laws be specific and limited.

Some great insights here from Report and LCVMA, especially for a prospective first-time buyer on the sideline. Thank you.

Isn't it ironic to see a vicious HOA vs Mello Roos battle? It's becoming clear I should avoid both of these monsters. These unfortunate residents have paid for both and have this headache to show for it. Could you imagine being a Santaluz resident paying an extra $1000/mo and reading this story? They can't be feeling good about their investment right now.

To be fair though, it appears to me that the LCV HOA is truly working for the benefit of its residents at a reasonable cost.

From a practical standpoint, if low income apartments were built on that site where would all of those kids go to school? The current elementary schools in EUSD are all filled up beyond their capacities. There is a limited amount of land available for schools in the first place so getting rid of a school site that already exists and replacing it with high density housing where there will be a lot of school age kids seems ludicrous. I understand we're dealing with bureaucrats, but at what point does common sense take over?

JM,

Someone at the meeting brought up that same concern, and another homeowner addressed it right away.

Sure enough, the school districts have more than enough room.

Even though the school within La Costa Valley has grown a lot, the other nearby schools have lots of extra space.

That's part of the beef the activists have with the district, because they say the district knew there would be no need before they bought the property and charged Mello-Roos anyway.

It's been only about 1% growth in kids and that checks out on schooldigger.com and the U.S. Department of Education’s Center for Education Statistics.

http://nces.ed.gov

Also, here's a nice chart.
Middle School serving La Costa Valley has grown 1% per year