Second home ownership

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

Life is for living, bro. You can't take it with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Depends on what you buy and how often you use it. We use ours at least 100 days a year and many years much more. We don’t use a property manager or purchase services. And we don’t have a mortgage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

Life is for living, bro. You can't take it with you.

I agree...but you can't make the claim that something is cost effective and then leave out many of the inputs related to cost (and opportunity cost).

However, in my example above the PP could have still lived essentially their exact same life (5 weeks in Hatteras each year)...but still have tons more money to do other things. Though, yes you wouldn't have the pictures of your kids getting older and be able to leave all your stuff at the house so packing is easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

Life is for living, bro. You can't take it with you.

I agree...but you can't make the claim that something is cost effective and then leave out many of the inputs related to cost (and opportunity cost).

However, in my example above the PP could have still lived essentially their exact same life (5 weeks in Hatteras each year)...but still have tons more money to do other things. Though, yes you wouldn't have the pictures of your kids getting older and be able to leave all your stuff at the house so packing is easy.

We also had no promise the S&P would perform like it has. You could have lost money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

Life is for living, bro. You can't take it with you.

I agree...but you can't make the claim that something is cost effective and then leave out many of the inputs related to cost (and opportunity cost).

However, in my example above the PP could have still lived essentially their exact same life (5 weeks in Hatteras each year)...but still have tons more money to do other things. Though, yes you wouldn't have the pictures of your kids getting older and be able to leave all your stuff at the house so packing is easy.

We also had no promise the S&P would perform like it has. You could have lost money.

Yeah…but the house could have lost money too.

[Anonymous]

Of you are rich you shouldn't worry even if it burns down. Don't follow the "rich" Jones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

Yes, and then you could have used all this extra money to?? Buy a second home??

Buying a second home is for people who already have or will have enough saved up for retirement etc. I don’t disagree with the financial point you are making. But a second home is more about consumption than investment. I think the OP was right that running costs aren’t always huge compared with the cost of renting, especially if you can get out there a lot. But ultimately you need to factor in your enjoyment/utility from it to see if it makes sense.
For us, buying a second home was one of the best things we ever did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

Yes, and then you could have used all this extra money to?? Buy a second home??

Buying a second home is for people who already have or will have enough saved up for retirement etc. I don’t disagree with the financial point you are making. But a second home is more about consumption than investment. I think the OP was right that running costs aren’t always huge compared with the cost of renting, especially if you can get out there a lot. But ultimately you need to factor in your enjoyment/utility from it to see if it makes sense.
For us, buying a second home was one of the best things we ever did.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

Yes, and then you could have used all this extra money to?? Buy a second home??

Buying a second home is for people who already have or will have enough saved up for retirement etc. I don’t disagree with the financial point you are making. But a second home is more about consumption than investment. I think the OP was right that running costs aren’t always huge compared with the cost of renting, especially if you can get out there a lot. But ultimately you need to factor in your enjoyment/utility from it to see if it makes sense.
For us, buying a second home was one of the best things we ever did.

Completely agree...but PP was trying to claim it was a money-saving decision when it clearly wasn't. If PP is only using it for 5 weeks per year, then it's even a worse money decision.

No need to justify what anyone spends their money on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who watches the property when you’re not in it most of the time? If a pipe burst or the water heater goes or it floods, how would you know? What if there’s a fire? How do you manage the huge risks of not living in a home FT?

Also two homes = twice the liability for thinks like HVAC, roof, plumbing, wiring, landscaping/gardening, pest control. And double the insurance. How is this cost effective?

It's not. I have two duplexes with significant cash flow on paper, but I've dealt with almost all of the hazards you listed: broken pipes, collapsed roofs, rodent infestations, and replacing HVACs. I am holding onto them and passing them on to my kids because they are in a great location, but it's a lot of work and big expenses. I keep $100k in an MM account for the LLC that owns the rentals to deal with problems when they inevitably come up. I haven't hired a property manager yet becasue I have a list of service providers and a main handyman to call, and I can handle listings, although I probably will hire one within the next 5 years becasue the money saved isn't really worth it anymore. I'm talking about rentals, not a vacation home, but the same premise applies. You have to be prepared for the liabilities. This is why we don't own vacation homes. We don't need anything else to take care of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

Life is for living, bro. You can't take it with you.

I agree...but you can't make the claim that something is cost effective and then leave out many of the inputs related to cost (and opportunity cost).

However, in my example above the PP could have still lived essentially their exact same life (5 weeks in Hatteras each year)...but still have tons more money to do other things. Though, yes you wouldn't have the pictures of your kids getting older and be able to leave all your stuff at the house so packing is easy.

We also had no promise the S&P would perform like it has. You could have lost money.

Yeah…but the house could have lost money too.

Not until it is sold. And you'd still have the family time together for 15 + years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have alarm systems for fire, carbon monoxide, security, and water detection. We have a property manager who checks things periodically and is available for emergencies, deliveries, etc if we aren’t there. In the summer, we have weekly landscaping and pool services. We have ring cameras and remote controlled heating and cooling systems.

None of this is cost effective. Is someone arguing that vacation homes are a bargain? They’re not.

Its very cost effective.

Look, my family and I spend about 5 weeks total on Hatteras Island in our little 3 bed 2 bath salt box every year. There is no yard to maintain. The shingles and roof are cedar (no maintenance) and we have hurricane shutters on the home when not there. Break ins just aren't a thing down there. We cut water and HVAC when we leave and remotely turn on HVAC about 5 hours before we arrive. Utilities average out to 110 a month. If we rented it comps are about $2600 a week. So if we rented we'd be spending $13,000 alone just on rent. Our total costs last year were $4300. So we are 9 grand better off and the house appreciated about 40% in the time we have owned it.

Then there is the huge bonus of getting to pick travel days based on traffic, having an entire wardrobe and toiletries down there (little to no packing) and a freezer full of pizzas and lasagnas for the first night down.

Icing on the cake is having the same picture every year of my three kids sitting in order on the porch from when they were babies until they were grown.

So, not to get into the weeds on your analysis, but I gather you paid 100% cash for the house? I don't see how your $4300 in total would include a mortgage, so I guess it's just property taxes, utilities and insurance? $4300 still seems low for all that.

The issue is always opportunity cost. I don't know much you paid, but if you had put your let's say $500k in just an S&P index like 10 years ago then you would have earned $15,000 in annual dividends (higher actually now since 2015) plus the S&P has tripled since 2015.

From a purely financial perspective you would be way, way better off if you had just decided to rent for 5 weeks each year.

Life is for living, bro. You can't take it with you.

I agree...but you can't make the claim that something is cost effective and then leave out many of the inputs related to cost (and opportunity cost).

However, in my example above the PP could have still lived essentially their exact same life (5 weeks in Hatteras each year)...but still have tons more money to do other things. Though, yes you wouldn't have the pictures of your kids getting older and be able to leave all your stuff at the house so packing is easy.

We also had no promise the S&P would perform like it has. You could have lost money.

Yeah…but the house could have lost money too.

Not until it is sold. And you'd still have the family time together for 15 + years.

Well, by that measure your stocks also haven’t lost value until they’re sold either…which is just as ridiculous as it sounds.

Look, I was just pointing out that PP’s analysis saying it was cheaper than renting was deeply flawed.

Lots of reasons to own a place…the numbers do start to make more sense if you buy in say a no-tax state and live there for 181 days (of course it technically becomes your primary)…you save on how much you would pay to rent and possibly significantly on state tax.

[Anonymous]

Just stop with the bullshit that it’s “cost effective” to have a beach house that’s only used 5 weeks a year, ok? There are lots of good things about it, but it ain’t “cost effective.” We had a beach house in OBX for about a decade and loved it but it also bled us dry!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just stop with the bullshit that it’s “cost effective” to have a beach house that’s only used 5 weeks a year, ok? There are lots of good things about it, but it ain’t “cost effective.” We had a beach house in OBX for about a decade and loved it but it also bled us dry!

Nah. It is cost effective. You could have doubled your money AND had free vaxations if you bought down there 10 years ago.

Don't be all mad cause youre broke and wont ever have one.