13 Comments

1. 

   Ginger on June 17, 2009 at 9:45 am

   One homeless guy said to another: “Swing by the liquor store, pick up a six pack of Old English and then come on by my new pad here in good old Encinitas”!

   And Mr. & Mrs. Jones your new home will come with the stench of body odor & urine.

2. 

   Former RB Resident on June 17, 2009 at 9:47 am

   Maybe Barratt should argue that allowing homeless people to live in the unfinished properties qualifies as low income housing.

3. 

   Todd on June 17, 2009 at 10:22 am

   I live next to that disaster. What’s funny, is that there are people STILL tearing down houses to build new mansions and these sit half finished. Maybe they could sell them to those people?

4. 

   arizonadude on June 17, 2009 at 11:27 am

   NIMBY please.

5. 

   Consultant on June 17, 2009 at 11:47 am

   The new public housing.

6. 

   3clicks from da Beach on June 17, 2009 at 12:20 pm

   I like that you are all access Jim and no deserving city or hood can escape your lens. If once is not familiar with Encinitas, it would appear a ghost town from that video. Well done.

7. 

   Aztec on June 17, 2009 at 1:46 pm

   Am I the only one who thinks that multi-property development should never have been allowed? It seems such a shame that large developers have swept in and ruined communities by stuffing in generic mass-produced homes using economies of scale. We need some kind of rule — you can buy land and carve it up. But you can’t build on it. You can only sell the lots. And no builder can be building more than X buildings within a certain radius.

   On the affordable housing topic… in some areas I think you can just buy your way out of it. I seem to recall up here in Marin county someone having to pay $40K or something.

8. 

   doughboy on June 17, 2009 at 2:21 pm

   Carlsbad let Rancho Carrillo’s master developer 8 years ago get away with naming the “Guest Suites” attached/within the Mc Mansions as affordable housing as long as they had an outside separate entrance!

9. 

   lgs on June 17, 2009 at 4:08 pm

   At least the homeless folks don’t have a home that has caused their networth to go negative. Zero is as low as they can get. That’s more than one can say about at least a few of the folks who bought the Barratt houses next door at the wrong time.

10. 

    ArtEclectic on June 17, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    Aztec, you can put me down as anti multi-property development. Those things give me the willies. Stepford communities.

11. 

    kevin on June 17, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    The developer chose to go for a density bonus on those two separate subdivisions. Density bonus can give the developer a windfall by adding more lots to the subdivision. In return, the developer sets aside some units that can not be leased or owned by someone who makes as much money as the typical resident. The density bonus is a state law written and approved by people with no names.

    What was crazy was that Barratt let David Meyer (another developer) hold only the low income housing unit. As you can tell, Meyer hasn’t been too swift in constructing the low income housing and there doesn’t appear to be any reason for him to build it.

12. 

    CA renter on June 18, 2009 at 12:18 am

    Am I the only one who thinks that multi-property development should never have been allowed? It seems such a shame that large developers have swept in and ruined communities by stuffing in generic mass-produced homes using economies of scale. We need some kind of rule — you can buy land and carve it up. But you can’t build on it. You can only sell the lots. And no builder can be building more than X buildings within a certain radius.
    ————-

    In 100% agreement with you on this. It’s actually one of my biggest pet peeves.

    Though this is understandably controversial, I have a problem with any person or entity controlling too much land. Yes, the definitions of “entity” and “too much” are very subjective and would make any regulations difficult to enforce, but as a general statement, I think society is best served if control and ownership of land is not concentrated as it is now.

13. 

    shoppingaround on June 18, 2009 at 5:57 am

    Doughboy,

    LOL! I always wondered why homes in Rancho Carrillo all had (mostly odd) “casitas.” Now I know.

    Also, there really have been developers who planned and built nice communities using their econmies of scale to help lower-end buyers. We just haven’t seen (m)any in SoCal for a looooong time–too much money to be made.