Reply to Second home 2 hours v 3 hours

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Second home 2 hours v 3 hours"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I took a different approach, buying an expensive home locally with all the amenities I want, and just going elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery.   I can't imagine spending hours each way to go to a second home, paying for maintenance and insurance on it, tying money up in a more vulnerable RE market as are rural and vacation area, and being always tied to a specific location.  You're signing up for financial and administrative commitments, and for a lack of flexibility.  But, each to their own.   [/quote]

LOL.  If you don't buy "an expensive home locally" then you can buy another that isn't local and together they can provide "all the amenities I want" and you can still "go elsewhere from time to time when I want a change of scenery."  What this thread is all about is how many "hours each way" to do this makes sense.  [/quote]

Because two lower end homes instead of one high end property with all your desired amenities also avoids all the financial and management costs associated with keeping a second house, and many people consider hours driving to and from a second home to be unproductive.  Time in a really nice primary property is not wasted, time on the road going back and forth is.  Not to mention the opportunity costs - with one home and the money you save by not paying for insurance and maintenance and taxes on a second one, you can vacation wherever you like whenever you want, without feeling that you should be using that same old second home because you're paying to keep it.

But, if paying and commuting to a second home floats your boat, more power to you.  [/quote]

I know I shouldn't waste my time debating this silly issue with you.  But what the hell, I will . . .

First, it all depends on one's definition of "expensive" versus "lower end," which is entirely location specific.  Our city house is worth $2 million and our country $1 million -- but our country house is "high end" regardless of where you might find it and is definitely "expensive" for the local area.  Our city house is hardly "lower end," but those who know DC wouldn't consider it "expensive" either.  It's a comfortable place in a superb location.

Which brings me to your definition of "all the nice amenities."  Clearly it's  different than mine.  To me, the "nice amenities" of a house is more than things like a big kitchen with high end appliances -- it's WHERE the house is located and the "amenities" that surround it.  From that standpoint, it's impossible to buy a single house with "all the nice amenities" when you want amenities that both the country and the city offer.  We didn't buy a second home to spend our time just sitting in it . . .

Yes, every time anyone is on the road you are "wasting time."   That's precisely why we limited our search for a second home to less than two hours away.  Also, we don't work so we don't spend a lot of time driving anywhere else.

Finally, what you call "opportunity costs."  Again, yes -- if you're not living below your means this is something you need to worry about.  But that isn't us.  Having to pay for "insurance and maintenance and taxes" on two places isn't a burden, and we can do that and still afford to -- and do -- travel extensively to other places regardless because we're not overextended.  We're not even close to house poor. 
[/quote]
+1 Lots of false dichotomies on here. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics