Lancaster and Palmdale and Victor Valley Projected Population Growth

The population in the Antelope Valley is now about 440,000 and about 360,000 in Victor Valley. The projected population for the Antelope Valley (including Southern Kern County) is to increase in 2030 to 880,000 while the population at Victor Valley during this period is to grow to 700,000 as both areas rank among the fastest growing in Southern California. The plan for the High Desert Corridor through mid 2013 is to continue the meetings and then to begin the engineering which is projected to begin construction in 2016 and then to complete the roadway in 2020. The tremendous growth in these areas will make this roadway an absolute necessity based on the projected population projections. The City of Lancaster 2000 population was an estimated 118,718 persons, representing a 22 percent increase over the 1990 population of 97,291 persons. As of January 1, 2007, the City’s population was an estimated of 143,818 persons. Population growth is expected to continue in Lancaster, with SCAG estimating that its population will reach 168,032 persons by 2010, 191,912 persons by 2015, 215,468 persons by 2020 and 259,696 persons by 2030.3 This projection would represent a population growth of approximately 80.6 percent between 2007 and 2030. Similar estimates are targeted for Palmdale, Ca also reaching 270,000 by 2030. LA Counties population is projected to increase to 10,718,007 persons by 2010 and 11,501,884 persons by 2020. The sources on population growth are SCAG’s, GAVEA, and Antelope Valley 2030 General Plan. The largest area for Los Angeles County to grow is the Antelope Valley as it hold 49% of the available vacant land in the county. An estimated 1 million population expansion in the next ten years can only take place in Lancaster and Palmdale with any significance. The Population growth alone will increase the demand for housing and land resources. If the Vacant land investor is looking for a 20 year buy and hold then with this growth and inflation then buying land now at current low rates is a great strategy for long term gains. Contact us today for low priced land via our site vacantlanddeals.com 213 500-9578 and view our current inventory.

CalHighSpeedRail Says Train Will Cost Under $100Billion and Launch Sooner With Revisions

HighSpeedRail recent New Conference: Promising "improvements" to the state's controversial bullet train plan, the new head of the project told a Senate hearing in Silicon Valley on Tuesday he now believes building high-speed rail would cost less than the alarming estimate of nearly $100 billion. "I believe the number's coming down," Dan Richard told a packed auditorium Tuesday night. "Obviously the $98 billion was sticker shock for a lot of people." Using existing tracks like Caltrain and speeding up the construction schedule would bring down the costs of the project, Richard said in defending the much-criticized plan that Gov. Jerry Brown has appointed him to revive. He also promised quicker upgrades to Bay Area and Los Angeles commuter lines that would share the track and upgrading the initial leg of track in the Central Valley. Richard said the project's first segment in the Central Valley -- dismissed by some as a $6 billion "train to nowhere" will be tweaked to offer more "immediate benefits," but he offered no specifics. He also vowed to spend some $750 million in state funds in the next few years to help electrify the Caltrain line (SFBay Area commuter train) and $1 billion for similar commuter rail upgrades in Southern California, laying the foundation for bullet trains in those regions. The state's new plan will call for launching train service sooner by breaking the 520-mile line into "bite-sized" segments that can be built quicker. Previous estimates had delayed full service between Richard did not shed light on the fact that California does not have about 85 percent of the funding needed to build the train. "I don't think we'll be able to look (the Legislature) or the public in the eye and tell them that we have any greater clarity about the funding today," Richard said. He did, however, defend estimates that enough passengers will ride the train to turn a profit. Richard testified before key Senate Democrats and a packed house at the 600-seat Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts during a rare Silicon Valley hearing on the project. The California High-Speed Rail Authority in the next two weeks will release a final business plan that will give a more detailed look at everything from costs to funding to rider estimates. Major changes are expected after the preliminary plan included huge cost increases and steep drops in expected rider counts. That led to a slew of criticism from nonpartisan analysts and a drop in support in polls among a majority of likely voters. The Legislature will debate the plan over the following two months before voting in June on whether to spend $2.7 billion to match $3.3 billion in federal funds to start building in the Central Valley early next year. Lawmakers would have to approve spending on the upgrades in the Bay Area and Southern California in future years. Democratic Sens. Joe Simitian of Palo Alto, Alan Lowenthal of Long Beach, and Mark DeSaulnier of Walnut Creek, asked pointed questions but could not get Richard or fellow project board member Jim Hartnett of Redwood City to offer specifics on the forthcoming plan. The Legislative Analyst's Office said Tuesday that it is still concerned about the lack of funding, the need for upgrades in major metro areas and that officials haven't accurately compared the huge cost of the bullet train to alternative investments. Will Kempton, who leads the project's independent peer review group, said the state should start building in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, not the Central Valley. That way, if California receives no more funding, it could at least upgrade popular commuter lines. "Those investments will not be lost," Kempton said. But Richard disputed that. "The words 'train to nowhere' may have escaped my lips before I" came on the board, Richard said. "But I believe today that it's the right place to start." Dozens or potentially hundreds of people were expected to speak late Tuesday into Wednesday morning to slam or tout the project. Construction workers held signs touting the project and were opposed by naysayers armed with "kill high-speed rail" fliers.

Mitigation Banking Has Been on the Rise in the Antelope Valley Just as California Department of Fish and Game Temporarily Halts Mitigation Program

As of March 14, 2012, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) announced that budget cuts have temporarily stopped the agency’s ability to review and approve new mitigation banking proposals statewide. The State budget cuts have created a backlog and the Department has slowed the process. DFG did acknowledge in their press release and website that mitigation banking is an important environmental tool and hopes the pause in mitigation land banking activities is short-lived. They will sign and complete bank agreements that are close to being completed, yet they didn’t indicate what it considers “close.” DFG will not, however, be approving new banking programs and stated it may not have the capacity to process major amendments to existing agreements.

This creates a great problem for smaller and new mitigation banking firms, which lack the capital to process and buy longer term. Some of the smaller mitigation bankers may have spent larger sums of capital on areas where the environmental benefits are not in delicate ecosystems for endangered plants and animals. These land bankers were buying larger parcels of land in the hopes that developers will buy the land to fulfill the environmentalist concerns. These smaller bankers will have to sell some of their land now to more deep pocket competitors or investors to stay afloat.

The mitigation business is similar to land banking business, where you buy vacant land and hold the land for buyers who need the land for later development. In mitigation banking the future buyers are developers who develop near cities growing areas and must buy “credits” to satisfy environmentalist and the state in order to develop their land today. An example would be a Mall developer, a solar or wind farm will have to buy large swaths of land and donate it to the state to preserve the land forever. Most of these parcels are in endangered animal and plant habitats like that of the desert tortoise, ground squirrel, and Joshua tree woodlands in Southern California.

We at vacantlanddeals.com have been working with several mitigation bankers who are buying land for current developers, or buying land now to mitigate bank it for future developer plans. We have hundreds of land owners on our list of potential sellers who can benefit from this mitigation wave. Contact us and we can help introduce your land to the larger mitigation bankers. Lancaster and Palmdale areas of Antelope Valley, and San Bernardino County are large target areas for land banking and mitigation banking needs. Some of the larger mitigation bankers can wait until the DFG completes its backlog or hires more employees to handle the traffic.

Wind Energy Projects have been a Challenge for Developers in Antelope Valley, Ca.

Many Antelope Valley residents are not excited over green energy projects underway for both Wind and Solar Energy. Many residents indicate that Wind Turbines would ruin the area's ambiance and harm the environment and the landscape will be changed forever.

The Antelope Valley energy companies want abundant lower priced land and lots of sun and wind. The sun scorches this landscape for at least nine out of 12 months and the wind gusts are reliable and steady.

Two solar projects have already been approved for unincorporated Los Angeles County. Eight other renewable energy projects have been proposed. The Wind Energy players NextEra Energy Resources and Element Power US want to build utility-scale wind turbine facilities that would tower hundreds of feet high.

According to the Los Angeles Times in a recent article the project manager for Element Power's proposed Wildflower Green Energy Farm. "Between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. the winds reach their highest peak, and it falls in line when the electrical grid has highest demand."

Element wants to use 4,000 acres of private land next to the poppy reserve for some 50 wind turbines almost 500 feet high. Each turbine would produce enough electricity to power up to 2,000 homes.

NextEra is proposing 90 turbines on about 7,000 acres in the northwestern Antelope Valley. This area has been identified by the California Energy Commission as suitable for large-scale wind and solar power developments. This is over an above Alta Wind Energies mega project of up to 1000 turbines in Tehachapi, Ca.

Resident fears once one large turbine project is approved then many more will be proposed. Solar panels are four to six feet above ground while the turbines will be hundreds of feet high. Home owners in Antelope Acres and Kings Canyon area argue that erecting wind turbines near homes would spoil views. They are also noisy and can devalue home prices. There are issues with large blades sparking fires, killing of birds and damaging wildlife habitat.

Element power has indicated that they have done habitat studies and they feel wildlife will not be adversely affected. They will also dedicate 320 acres for permanent conservation. Next Era also feels the turbines will have a minimal effect on wildlife.

We have helped introduce a number of property owners to solar and wind developers and consultants. Contact vacantlanddeals.com if you have property that maybe of interest to alternative energy developers.

California Assembly Bill 2474 Targets Rural Property Owners Disproportionately

Governor Brown this year has waged a campaign to charge rural residents for the costs of fire protection since an increasing number have moved into wildland areas. And state fire officials say the greater the number of homes in rural areas, the higher the cost of fighting fires.

Assembly Bill 2474 (Chesbro) was introduced in the California Legislature on February 24, 2012 to address some of the concerns facing Californians who own real property in the state fire responsibility areas (SRA), and who will start seeing bills (in the amount of $150 per habitable structure for fire prevention fees) show up in their mailboxes this June.
AB 2474 will require the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to take into consideration: (1) any amounts that an owner of a structure in a SRA already pays for local fire prevention services, and (2) the severity of the fire zone where the structure is located. If this bill is signed into law it should comfort homeowners who already actively engage in fire prevention measures on their own, and those who own property in SRA zones where the fire severity rating is lower.

The current existing law requires the Board to adopt emergency regulations to establish a fire prevention fee in an amount not to exceed $150 to be charged on each structure on a parcel that is within a SRA. The Board is required to adjust the fee annually using prescribed methods. The fees (tax) will provide $85 million to State coffers. This is another way to slowly increase the cost of living to homeowners and land owners. Rural property owners have less support and clout than urban property owners, and they call it a fee instead of a tax to reduce its attention. Nevada County Supervisor Hank Weston was quoted as calling the $150 charge "a farce to fill a budget gap created by the state."

Alta Wind Energy Center in Tehachapi Kern County is Moving Along

There are a number of wind farms operating or under development in Kern County near Tehachapi, Ca. The largest one under development is the Alta Wind Energy Center (AWEC) which is located in the Tehachapi-Mojave Wind Resource Area.
Terra-Gen Power is the developer AWEC, and it will be California's largest wind energy project. They have a 20 year power purchasing agreement with SoCal Edison to sell 1550 megawatts of energy produced by these towers. These towers are 400 to 500 feet, which is about the distance the Golden Gate Bridge is from the Bay. It was partially approved based on tax incentives to the community, its environment reduction of energy, and low use of water compared to some solar projects. $55 million was invested by Google, and Terr-Gen’s raised $1.2 billion from Barclays Capital, Citibank and Credit Suisse.

It also has been a bit of a boondoggle for residents and land owners. Landowners get a royalty for wind towers to operate on their property. If you think about it this land is primarily rolling hills at a distance from development without city services. The main use for this land has been cattle grassing or nothing until AWEC stepped in. The royalty rights are targeted to be $20 million to the land owners. There has been $2 billion invested in this area the last two years. Perhaps one of the drawbacks is the limited employment as only 50 jobs have been created with several hundred temporary construction jobs. Residents have complained at least those who have not personally benefitted as these large towers dominate the landscape. It certainly changes the views in the horizon. According to the American Wind Energy Association the two initial projects were completed in fall 2010. There are other projects were targeted to be completed in early 2011. They are projected to produce 4550 megawatts of energy once all projects are complete. There have been proposals to triple the wind energy in this area to eventually encompass 50 square miles. This is part of SoCal Edison’s transmission line expansion.
According to reports Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) is the initial phase at a cost of almost $2 billion. The plan is to send 4500 megawatts to Los Angeles about 80 miles from Tehachapi, Ca.

There is certainly Wind Gold in them thar hills as there are also a number of other wind farms in the area such as NextEra, Cal Wind Resources, Coram, Oak Creek Energy Systems, GE Energy, AES, Mogul Energy Windland, and enXco. The vacant land investor can now say buy slopping windy land and wait as it too has paid off.

Adverse Possession of Lancaster, Palmdale California Land

We ran across this issue as we were trying to sell a property where the owner lived overseas outside the Antelope Valley area. We were attempting to drive by the property and we found an illegal dwelling and a man with a gun defending the property. Now this doesn’t occur everyday, but in parts of the Antelope Valley surrounding the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, Ca. there is a lot of vacant land with little access or only a dirt road. Now the squatter was on the property but had taken physical possession. He appeared to have been living on the property for some time and making a home of his own, but didn’t complete all the factors of adversely possessing the property. You can acquire a property by adverse possession including a house or vacant land in California, but the action will take at least five years.

The process to make a claim of adverse possession in California by a claimant (the party seeking to gain title to the property) they must successfully demonstrate the following. 1. Possession under a claim of right or color of title, which means ownership of property by a person in possession, without being regular( so not the documented registered owner), Color of title is where the claimed owner has some piece of paper claiming to transfer title to him or herself. This can be done writing a document saying you are the owner. 2. Actual, open, notorious occupation (protected by a substantial enclosure such as a fence, barrier or wall and usually cultivated or improved. 3. Claimant is adverse and in hostile possession. 4. Continuous possession for a period of five years. 5. Payment of all taxes assessed against the property during the five-year period. Most people think you just have to pay the taxes, but in order to fully take the property and defend it in court then you need to have all of the above.

It could be easier to acquire this type of property at a tax sale then doing all of the above unless it is a house where the time and value is more in your favor. Adverse possession of tens or hundreds of acres of land could be more difficult to fence if you are challenged in court. You may have to do more research to find out what is open and notorious in adverse possession of vacant land. We have ran across potential properties that can be taken by adverse possession as the property owner has given up and no longer intends to pay the property taxes, so the other parts of adverse possession can be undertaken.