Bigger house for Tunaclan?

RossD wrote: What about renting an office space? It's definitely not ideal but in could work if it's just around the corner...

Not an awful idea, but not something we could really manage. Getting kids this age into and out of the car takes way more time than you would expect.

bluej wrote: Have you explored adding a separate structure on the property? Don't you have some backyard space (going from hazy memory of that drainage discussion). Literally just a (class)room. I wonder if it would be cheaper than the addition. Edit: same thought as indyjoe

It's only a half acre, and not quite, at that. A new structure would not jive.

STM317 wrote: I'd talk to a realtor about selling your place to gauge what it might bring in the current market. It might be less risky to put your place on the market, and use the money from the sale to put down on a larger place than it would be to try and juggle the issues with having multiple mortgages and multiple properties to care for. If Tuna Kids get a break from the homeschool stuff during the summer, it might allow you to clear out some space in the house to make it more appealing to potential buyers. And having less stuff crowding everybody might improve morale a bit too.

No real summer break.

We will contact a realtor to get an idea, but with a vacant house next door, we don't expect it to be the right time to sell it.

RossD wrote: Why do you believe that your house wouldn't go up in value with more square footage? I know the probability of it going up the same amount as the cost is unlikely but you should realize some increase value. 1800 sf at $165k gives $91.67/sf Random addition of 200sf on the first floor and 200sf on the second gets 2200sf at $165k gives you $75.00/sf. That's a pretty big hit and seems unlikely.

Properties in the area more or less drive the price ceiling, and they are all pretty much the same value. I have not found that price/square feet is meaningful in any way.

tuna55 wrote:

bluej wrote: Have you explored adding a separate structure on the property? Don't you have some backyard space (going from hazy memory of that drainage discussion). Literally just a (class)room. I wonder if it would be cheaper than the addition. Edit: same thought as indyjoe

It's only a half acre, and not quite, at that. A new structure would not jive.

How about a 10x12 Mini-Barn (shed) just off the edge of that deck? The kind that sits on 4x4 or 6x6 runners on concrete blocks? (no foundation) My parents just had a REAL nice one delivered that was less than 4k.

IndyJoe wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

bluej wrote: Have you explored adding a separate structure on the property? Don't you have some backyard space (going from hazy memory of that drainage discussion). Literally just a (class)room. I wonder if it would be cheaper than the addition. Edit: same thought as indyjoe

It's only a half acre, and not quite, at that. A new structure would not jive.

How about a 10x12 Mini-Barn (shed) just off the edge of that deck? The kind that sits on 4x4 or 6x6 runners on concrete blocks? (no foundation) My parents just had a REAL nice one delivered that was less than 4k.

No. For lots of logistical reasons, that would not jive.

It's amazing how small a half acre is when you're trying to preserve some semblance of kid space.

mazdeuce wrote: It's amazing how small a half acre is when you're trying to preserve some semblance of kid space.

Yes

mazdeuce wrote: It's amazing how small a half acre is when you're trying to preserve some semblance of kid space.

Which is why we had a 3 acre minimum when looking at properties. it was limiting, very much so- most new homes are built in tracts and with way less land. But on days like Sunday, when Mrs VCH was out in the field working on her garden, and she can just let our 20 month old daughter free-range with all that land....it's so worth it.

In reply to volvoclearinghouse:

Agreed. I would rather have land. I do not mandate it, though, mostly because at this price range, and with these constraints, well, I'll just say it, because I really do not want paneling.

Sorry, I didn't get time to read this entire thread. But, while making smart financial decisions is critical, so is taking care of the family. The Klayfish crew likes their space. Before we moved to GA, we were in a rural area and the house was 4800 sq ft on 3.5 acres. Loved the land, but it was a time investment. We're now in 3000 sq ft on .8 acres and it's great. Enough room to spread out, but not too much to care for. If we weren't so busy with the kids, I'd do the land and big house in a heartbeat. But my kids are priority. I feel like we found a good balance...well, except for the damn HOA.

tuna55 wrote: SVreX: I appreciate your experience here. I think the biggest issue is that we lack homeschool space. Our sleeping arrangements, well the kids anyway, is working fine. The three sharing a room is not troublesome. The issues are that my bedroom is also the sewing/homeschool prep room. The kitchen is also the homeschool library (for assignments and handed in papers and such). The dining room is also a classroom and a violin room (Tunawife teaches many lessons on the side). The family/living room is also a play room and also a group activity room. We have trouble finding places for everyone to sit during the day to do solo work, and finding a place for everyone to gather to hear a story, or whatever, without being distracted by the inevitable 'other stuff' in the house.

There is not a single thing you have listed that is at all different for our homeschooling environment. Literally. Every single thing is the same. It has been that way for the 22 years we have been homeschooling.

Well, OK, my wife doesn't play the violin. But she does run a business, as do I, and she teaches piano, tutors, and group teaches in our home.

At one point we had students working in five different grade levels from kindergarten to HS senior.

Yes, our kitchen table is our school workspace, and sewing assembly table, and project construction workbench, and dinner table, and web business office, and construction company office. Every single day.

Yes, the DR is our music room, and project display area, and game room. Every day.

Yes, my wife and I still sleep in the foyer, and she sometimes brings her computer to bed to do work (sad face).

Yes, private space is at a premium. Sometimes my son writes papers in the bathroom.

But the 2 who have graduated are both doing really well (1 maintained a 4.0 average and earned her Masters from GA Tech, the other will be filming at LeMans this year), and the 3 still at home are not doing badly either.

I'm not telling you what to do, but don't think space will solve homeschooling chaos. It's part of the package. As a long time President of 2 homeschool associations, I can tell you that I have been in the homes of hundreds of homeschool families, and you are not alone. I have NEVER been in a homeschool home that was organized, neat, or had enough space, no matter how large. You are not alone.

It's kind of part of the package. Convoluted and chaotic environments breed creative and intimate learning environments, and I have seen many, many families do very well in such non-traditional environments. It's not for everyone, but it can work well for some.

It would be easy for me to think that my youngest daughter would have done better in school with some decent private workspace. But I forget she would not have learned to work through problems with her brothers, or learned to focus when there is a lot of noise and distractions around. She would not have learned critical thinking from people more advanced than she is. She has become an excellent student in spite of the challenges.

So, consider your needs, and by all means go for them. But don't sell yourself short and measure your success by the stuff, instead of by the fruit. I guarantee there are a few things that are advantages right now that you will no longer have in a "better" house.

volvoclearinghouse wrote:

SVreX wrote: BTW, homeowner insurance is more expensive for tenant occupied units than it is for owner occupied units- sometimes a LOT more expensive.

That's funny, it was the exact opposite for us. When I called our insurance co, and told them we were going to rent the house out, and needed a new policy, it was slightly cheaper. The reason is when you rent, the homeowner's insurance no longer covers personal property in the home. So if there's a loss (due to theft or whatever) the tenants are on the hook for replacement. So all the HOI covers then is damage to the actual property itself. I guess their actuarial tables (in our situation, at least) showed that to be less risky.

Just a word of advice that may or may not apply to you. These things likely vary by state and company.... but most of the rental or basic policies I deal and have dealt with pay out at actual cash value vs replacemt cost and have exclusions for many causes of loss. They are often named peril policies. For example theyill often do not cover water damages unless caused by a wind created opening (no coverage if a pipe breaks etc.)

Your results may vary but I don't want to see someone burned thinking they have coverage they don't.

Greg Voth wrote:

volvoclearinghouse wrote:

SVreX wrote: BTW, homeowner insurance is more expensive for tenant occupied units than it is for owner occupied units- sometimes a LOT more expensive.

That's funny, it was the exact opposite for us. When I called our insurance co, and told them we were going to rent the house out, and needed a new policy, it was slightly cheaper. The reason is when you rent, the homeowner's insurance no longer covers personal property in the home. So if there's a loss (due to theft or whatever) the tenants are on the hook for replacement. So all the HOI covers then is damage to the actual property itself. I guess their actuarial tables (in our situation, at least) showed that to be less risky.

Just a word of advice that may or may not apply to you. These things likely vary by state and company.... but most of the rental or basic policies I deal and have dealt with pay out at actual cash value vs replacemt cost and have exclusions for many causes of loss. They are often named peril policies. For example theyill often do not cover water damages unless caused by a wind created opening (no coverage if a pipe breaks etc.) Your results may vary but I don't want to see someone burned thinking they have coverage they don't.

Thank you for the concern. I have had the same ins. co for over 10 years and have actually had claims with them- never any hassles. I read the entire contract so I know what's covered. It's a fairly reputable company and it's the same company my dad has used for all of his life as well. It's not one that most people have heard of. And I know it's not the cheapest, either, but, well, you get what you pay for. They cover my cars, too (except the collector cars, those are under a separate policy).

"Only Half an Acre"

How about some perspective:

This is not a room, its an apartment. In one of the wealthiest cities on the planet. People live like this.

NOHOME wrote: "Only Half an Acre" How about some perspective: This is not a room, its an apartment. In one of the wealthiest cities on the planet. People live like this.

If you notice, I have never said "I need" to any of this.

This is all what is desired, and to see what knobs I can turn to get there.

Finance guy has some numbers. Essentially, it's $20K cheaper over the next 30 years to rent this house and buy a new one than it is to sell this house and buy a new one.

It's $90K more expensive to rent this house and buy a new one than it is to just stay put. In this scenario, though, we will have a property in which we do not live, which we can sell. Presumably, this will be worth more then $90K in 30 years, and thus, over the long haul, this is the financial winner even over doing nothing.

What is the tax hit when you sell the income property at the end of the 30 years?

NOHOME wrote: What is the tax hit when you sell the income property at the end of the 30 years?

No idea. I've never sold a home. I don't even know how to figure that out.

Also, this is assuming taxes and insurance are proportional to what we pay now. It's probably a little aggressive.

NOHOME wrote: What is the tax hit when you sell the income property at the end of the 30 years?

You move back into it for 3 years, then sell it tax-free. As long as a property (under current tax law) is your primary residence for 3 out of the last 5 years, sales of that home are not ordinarily taxed.

volvoclearinghouse wrote:

NOHOME wrote: What is the tax hit when you sell the income property at the end of the 30 years?

You move back into it for 3 years, then sell it tax-free. As long as a property (under current tax law) is your primary residence for 3 out of the last 5 years, sales of that home are not ordinarily taxed.

Wow, that's some good advice right there.

However, you've got to take those proceeds to buy another house within something like 2 years. So if the end of the 30 year scenario is that you are downsizing back to one house to live in, you wouldn't get that tax break.

I was due.

When I started renting out the house I used to live in, the plan was to sell it within 2-3 years. So I did not set it up as a business, but did claim the income on my taxes. The logic was if I sold it within 2 years, I'd get the proceeds tax-free. And if it was 3 years, I'd only owe taxes on 1/3 of the sale (likewise if it were 4 years, it'd be 2/3 of the sale being taxed). But, after 5+ years of renting it out it became obvious this was going to be a long term thing (the housing market still hasn't really recovered, at least in this area) so I had the taxes for the past few years re-done and set the house up as a true rental, claiming depreciation and all that crap. If we need to sell the house at some point we'll owe taxes on the profit (sale price minus depreciated value or purchase price, I forget which) but the tax savings along the way have more than made up for the appreciation in the property thus far. And heck, if the place is worth a million dollars in 20 years or whenever, I'll pay the stupid taxes.

Like my dad always says, if you're paying taxes, and you've done everything you legally can to not pay taxes, it means you're making money.

szeis4cookie wrote: However, you've got to take those proceeds to buy another house within something like 2 years. So if the end of the 30 year scenario is that you are downsizing back to one house to live in, you wouldn't get that tax break.

Is that true? See, this is where an accountant comes in very handy. My knowledge of tax law is limited to my conversations with my dad (who was an accountant) and my current tax accountant. But my understanding is sale of a primary (3/5 years) residence under a certain amount (IIRC something like 485,000) is tax free, without condition. Unless someone can cite tax law differently.

In reply to volvoclearinghouse:

Greek greek greek.

It sounds like I need to talk to an accountant.