Buy a second home is common in your country?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by mhays

240glt, one less person doing the second home thing might mean one less new house built.

But someone living in a downtown condo who has a second home on remote, isolated acreage that otherwise is in its natural state (i.e. they have a house instead of camping on their land when they go there) "occupies" less total "land" than any typical one SFH would...

[240glt]

Originally Posted by mhays

I suppose that would depend on how much total land, energy, habitat, etc., they use across the board. Nobody will hit zero, and personally I don't plan to try, but we all make choices that have a sizeable effect.

Regarding the 401(k) question, how odd. The concept of using less now means divesting from the entire economic system?

240glt, one less person doing the second home thing might mean one less new house built.

Somehow I doubt that

On our lake there are maybe six properties. On the adjoining larger lake there are well over a hundred. There's an ample supply of resale properties in the area yet new, massive million dollar chalets are being built all the time.

Put another way, we have three titles to our property. If someone else had bought the land, they could have easily subdivided it and built two extra houses. So by maintaining our land in raw state we're preserving land

And also, we buy lots of goods and services from locals. I had a new high efficiency wood heater put in by a local contractor, i bought a dock from a local dock builder, i had the deck railings replaced by another local contractor, and when we're up there we buy local groceries and such. so we're helping the local economy in the area as well

There will never be a shortage of buyers for certain types of property, so really the only "waste" that i see is in driving there. And as stated, if we're counting that as "waste", all vacations taken by everybody is a waste

If I want to "waste" money on a recreational property that's my prerogative. I fail to see how a 40 year old 1000sf log cabin is a waste, especially since that property falls in line with our semi-retirement plans down the road

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by mhays

So two right wingers think excess consumption is ok. Surprise.

I'm a liberal Scandinavian, but count me in on thinking "excess consumption" in the form of additional homes are okay


If people here didn't have that option they wouldn't live in apartments in the city, but instead move out into the suburbs - now they can get the best of borth worlds and all benefit from it, in terms of less traffic, more tax revenue, jobs created by construction and maintanence and it spreads people out acrossthe coast line instead of them flocking to a few beaches in the city..

It's a win win for all!

[chris08876]

Its kinda a catch 22 when it comes to Capitalist nations. Excessive consumption is great for the economy, but at the same time, there are drawbacks to it where too much can be a hazard towards society. I guess the real solution is a balance or a common ground between the two. In a heavily service based economy, that might be hard to do.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

oh, so now it's no longer about how many homes an individual owns, it's his total land, energy, habitat, etc. usage across the board that matters.

i ask you again, so that i may appropriately aim my moral outrage at the correct targets, where exactly is the line of total land, energy, habitat, etc. usage across the board where on crosses from prudent and acceptable into wasteful and morally bankrupt?

This is getting wierd. Do you honestly think level of consumption isn't a moral/ethical point?

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by JManc

Hampton Beach. So many beached whales and not a single cetacean in sight... Rye, up the road is quite nice though.

They could easily make a better Jersey Shore (not setting the bar very high, I know) based on Hampton Beach and Plastic Paddy Irish trash from Mass and NH. And I would slavishly watch every episode.

And totally, Rye is great.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by mhays

When you're declaring it's ok to be wasteful on a big scale, which affects everyone else as well as the planet, yes you can be called out on it, regardless of what justifications are in your head.

Just curious as what it is that is "wasteful" and affects people and planet about homes or modern living in general?

[10023]

Originally Posted by FREKI

I'm a liberal Scandinavian, but count me on thinking "excess consumption" in the form of additional homes are okay


If people here didn't have that option they wouldn't live in apartments in the city, but instead move out into the suburbs - now they can get the best of borth worlds and all benefit from it, in terms of less traffic, more tax revenue, jobs created by construction and maintanence and it spreads people out acrossthe coast line instead of them flocking to a few beaches in the city..

It's a win win for all!

The voice of reason.

To me, having a house in the country/at the beach/on a lake (depending on the city) is an essential part of staying in the city.

I'm sorry, but people with the resources (financial and otherwise) and options aren't going to buy into mhays' dream of an ascetic lifestyle and a 900 square foot city apartment (especially if they kids). I like having a deck and a grill and the ability to take long walks in the country or spend the day at the beach.

And as others have said, it's silly to focus on 1 versus 2 properties rather than total consumption "footprint" anyway. Is a 4-5k square foot apartment or house in the city any better than the same total split between two places?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 10023

To me, having a house in the country/at the beach/on a lake (depending on the city) is an essential part of staying in the city.

Indeed, actually, rather.

*clap clap* Wash my feet, you cretins! WASH MY FEET! Now then, where is the lake?

[10023]

Anyone have a reply that isn't trolling?

As much as anyone loves city life, people need to spend time outdoors, in real open space, with fresh air. You can travel to different places and stay at B&B's and things, but that entails a lot of logistics (finding, booking, packing) and cost over time if you're doing it 10+ weekends per year. Plus it's nice to have your own place, filled with your own stuff, your own kitchen/grill to cook, etc. Having a second home addresses one of the few non-economic arguments in favor of decamping for the suburbs, IMO. And they needn't be extravagant, or in the Hamptons. Plenty of people in Chicago have houses in Wisconsin and Michigan that are worth like $150k.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 10023

Anyone have a reply that isn't trolling?

Anyone have a question that isn't trolling?[/QUOTE]

[dc_denizen]

how much does a basic cabin in Colorado or the UP cost I wonder...

is it that much of a luxury compared to say, world travel (which many here have probably done)?

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

how much does a basic cabin in Colorado or the UP cost I wonder...

is it that much of a luxury compared to say, world travel (which many here have probably done)?

Given that the only real "cost" is the maintenance and upkeep, as real estate is an asset that can be sold when you're done with it (and usually gains value in the long-run at least in line with inflation), it's less expensive than the same time spent in hotels.

It's not an alternative per se - most people with second homes still take vacations elsewhere - but city and country is a preferable alternative to suburbia (which I personally consider the worst rather than best of both worlds).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

This is getting wierd. Do you honestly think level of consumption isn't a moral/ethical point?

nothing weird at all. you were the one slinging the "right-winger" epithet at people merely for liking the idea of a second home. if someone owns 2 modest homes, i fail to realize why they should deserve special ire when there are plenty of people in our society who are far more wasteful with one home.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

nothing weird at all. you were the one slinging the "right-winger" epithet at people merely for liking the idea of a second home. if someone owns 2 modest homes, i fail to realize why they should deserve special ire when there are plenty of people in our society who are far more wasteful with one home.

My god, read first. See the "liberal BS" accusation that spurred that.

As for the second point (read first, again)... the point would have more to do with someone's overall impact, not whether they have one house or two. But yes, a second one would be a lot more consumption than the first one alone.

You seem to be confusing the concept of "waste" with "evil." We all do some wasteful things, me included. But I'm glad when those wasteful things are taxed.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

You seem to be confusing the concept of "waste" with "evil." We all do some wasteful things, me included. But I'm glad when those wasteful things are taxed.

i think we have fundamentally different ideas of "waste".

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

how much does a basic cabin in Colorado or the UP cost I wonder...

is it that much of a luxury compared to say, world travel (which many here have probably done)?

If you rent it out on weekends that you're unavailable to be there then the cost is zero and actually provides income.

It's a great investment that can be passed down to family.

Apparently this concept is very difficult for some on SSP to wrap their minds around.

[chris08876]

^^^^

The money starts to add up too. Real Estate is always risky, not denying that, but overtime is where it really shines. The biggest killer when it comes to owning a property are the taxes. IDK about Colorado, but in NJ, its bad.

[Trantor]

while it´s a faaaaaar stretch to say it´s common in Brazil to own in a second house, when a majority of the population can´t even afford the first...

most of the coast in the south and São Paulo is made up of 2nd homes. That is less true in Rio, the northeast, etc, where capital cities ARE coastal and therefore the highrises on the beach are first, not 2nd homes.

some examples

Capão da Canoa in my state (actually, over 70km of continuous urbanized coast from Torres in the northeast to south of Tramandaí)
EVERYTHING in this photo are 2nd homes


Torres



Itapema
[IMG][/IMG]

Camboriu

[Doug]

Originally Posted by 10023

Given that the only real "cost" is the maintenance and upkeep, as real estate is an asset that can be sold when you're done with it (and usually gains value in the long-run at least in line with inflation), it's less expensive than the same time spent in hotels.

It's not an alternative per se - most people with second homes still take vacations elsewhere - but city and country is a preferable alternative to suburbia (which I personally consider the worst rather than best of both worlds).

My family had a vacation home on a lake until the mid 2000's. It was a great investment from the perspective that it gained in value relative to the 1970's purchase price, not so much on a go forward basis. The annual carrying costs in terms of taxes, utilities and maintenance were in the $25k range. More important, selling the property and investing even with a conservative 5% average return would fund more vacations than the entire family could ever take. With the Baby Boomer retirement wave largely over, go forward gains on vacation properties will be modest at best. With innovations like VRBO and AirBnB renting vacation properties has become easier and less expensive than ever.

The other challenge with vacation properties is that one ends up going to the same place over and over. Some people like that predictability, some get bored of it.