Talk:Spring Valley, San Diego County, California

Merge proposal
Spring Valley is comprised of various parts to include La Presa and Casa de Oro; however each of these subsections are too small in land relevance to merit there own city resources. They should, in essence, remain in name Spring Valley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.131.117 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The people who live in the La Presa CDP consider themselves as living in Spring Valley and they receive their mail addressed to Spring Valley. Spring Valley has the greater recognition value. CDPs that divide major communities and are merely used for the convenience of the U.S. Census Bureau for statistical purposes should not be excised from those communities. Spring Valley should be recognized for what it is, a large community with a separate identity. CDPs that are carved out of such communities should be simply included in the main articles about the communities. Rsduhamel 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your issue, but I think we should still keep the articles separate. There is value in having a complete list of CDPs. Instead of merging can we cover the matter in the text of the article? -Will Beback 20:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the need for a separate article for every CDP. However, if I'm in the minority, Spring Valley and other communities that are split into multiple CDPs could have separate articles about the greater communities. Perhaps all of the CDP articles should be moved to articles denoting that they are CDPs. For example the existing Spring Valley article could be moved to "Spring Valley, California (census-designated place)" and the parts that identify Spring Valley as a whole community could remain in the current article. A good argument for this is that the U.S. Census Bureau does not set the boundaries for cities and communities. In California it is various Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) that answer to the State. According to the San Diego LAFCO, Spring Valley includes La Presa. So, the Spring Valley article should cover all of Spring Valley, not just the half that the Census Bureau included in the CDP by the same name. Rsduhamel 21:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would make sense to have two articles covering the two different definitions of the place. -Will Beback 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The concensus seems to be to keep the separate articles. The merge proposal has been removed. Rsduhamel 21:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should merge, either, just in case someone's trying that again. I know that criminal registration's a big topic in Spring Valley (they're all against it), but now that Lakeside's taken its position, it'd just be a wasted effort.  So, no merge.--76.212.151.63 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)