Choice of Residence

[plumtreeblossom]

[Poll #690264]

I realized that almost everyone considers both factors to some degree. But I'm interested in seeing to which side more people lean, which is why I didn't put a "Both Equal" option. Choose whichever is of more importance to you, and feel free to discuss.

Comments

[earthling177.livejournal.com]

I don't like either of the options you provided, so I'll try to explain.

There are lots of things that are important to me but not the most important. Sure, a nice community by the subway is wonderful. A snotty, overpriced community by the subway is not ideal.

I am flexible about the size of the property and the unit. I prefer near the subway (buses are not as attractive to me, given how they fail to work well in MA, particularly when it snows).

I prefer communities that will let you live your life and will not intrude and tell you what you can or cannot do to your life or home -- that pretty much eliminates large amounts of places in this state that either have a "homeowners' association" or a "historic society". When you find out that you might be sued because you painted your home a color you like or the blinds/curtain liners in your living room are not the right kind/color, almost anything else will turn sour, no matter how nice looking the "community" is or how much of a deal the property was to me... other people have different views, and they should go live in the restrictive communities and let me live my life.

The best home for my dollar takes top billing, and it's why I chose that option. If you buy a home that needs lots of renovations, you will end up overpaying, particularly in restrictive neighborhoods. I'm always astounded when people buy a home for close to half-a-million bucks, then This Old House comes and spends another million to fix it up to livable -- I don't think they'll *ever* get to sell the home for a million and half bucks, even if people would pay more to buy a home that was remodeled by This Old House, which I doubt.

People keep saying you can change anything except the location, but they have not lived in certain areas that restrict severely what you can do to your home -- there was a property that burned down in Harvard Square a few years ago and, wouldn't you know it, the powers-that-be wouldn't even let the owners rebuild the place the way it was because now they wanted all kinds of setbacks that would essentially mean the new place would be maybe 10x10 feet and, to top it off, that is "too small" to let anyone have a certificate of occupancy. So, the owners had to take a very extended time to "remodel" room by room. Really, if that's allowed, then why didn't they give the owners a variance from the start? Did they really want to be the stupid assholes of the year?