Still thinking about the adorable little house I saw in the downtown historic district. It’s a lot smaller than my house: more than the equivalent of two bedrooms smaller. On the other hand, my house is one or two bedrooms too large. Contemplating retirement, I’ve thought I need a smaller place, and two bedrooms would do. In addition, it has what appears to be an intact garage. Many homeowners in that area insulate and drywall the old garage, fill in the doorway with a regular door and a window, add a heat pump, and call it a “guest cottage.” This hugely jacks up the property value, because it adds about 300 or 350 square feet to the livable space. Put a bathroom and a kitchenette in there, and you can get $500 or $600 a month in rent, or have a nice place to put up visiting friends and relatives.
On the other hand, moving is a big expense: do I really want to blow off what I’ve put into this house (which is very pleasant, the neighborhood and pending train-track construction notwithstanding) to move to a smaller place?
What’s the worst that could happen?
I move to Willo and…
…the house and moving expenses are more than I can afford; the house is no cheaper to maintain. I’m forced to move to an apartment or Sun City.
I stay here and…
…the house is more than I can afford, I’m forced to move to an apartment or to Sun City. Property values stay static or drop, so I can’t get into a place where I want to live.
Kinda looks like a wash, doesn’t it? Is it wishful thinking, or are there really more advantages (and fewer disadvantages) to moving than to staying?