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][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]

DP…
Opportunity cost exists no matter how much money you have.  The money you are spending on two houses could be used on something else.  It’s also an inefficient allocation as you can only be in one spot at one time but you’re spending money on  two.

We had 2 houses at one point.  But during Covid we moved to our “second” home and sold our primary.

1.  Opportunity cost of both the annual opex but also the equity
2. Mental load factor of maintaining 2 properties - coordinating cleaning, landscaping, repairs, bills.

We could “easily” afford it and our second home was more expensive than our former primary home by a long shot.

I will only have 2 homes again if I can afford a personal assistant as well.  Or, homes are used seasonally where I can shut one down and start the other up so that I don’t have ongoing hassle at 2 different locations.

Perhaps you have so much money you have household staff maintaining one or both properties.  Or even someone handling your schedule and coordination.

If you don’t, you can’t say that two houses don’t come at a significant time/bandwidth cost, even if you’re willing to overlook the dollar cost and opportunity cost that accompanies it.[/quote]

You're nitpicking to be contrarian.

If we had one larger and more expensive home, insurance on that home and taxes on that home would be higher than either of these expenses are on either of our current homes individually.  Would they be higher than our current two homes combined?  Probably not.  But c'mon.  That's like saying since it's more cost effective and efficient to cook dinner instead of eating out we should never eat out.  We don't live that way and don't have to.

It's also untrue that we can only be in one house at one time.  There's more than one of us, neither one of us works as I said, and we're not joined at the hip 24/7.  We also open the country house to family and friends -- adult children, etc. -- and it's often occupied even when we're not there.  It's also not very hard to coordinate maintenance etc when the house is less than two hours away, right?

Isn't that the whole point of this thread, in fact -- how far away should the second home be to not be a hassle?  We've actually owned second homes that were further away, including seasonal ones, and they WERE a hassle.  This one isn't.

[/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