Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Buying vs. renting your domicile

1235»

Posts

  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Again, that's fine for you. But houses are selling in Seattle. In fact I've seen at least 5 or 6 houses with sold signs within a mile or two of me just in the past week. And these are houses that are selling for at least $350k. The demand certainly is there, just not what it was 3 years ago. Prices have come down to reflect that. So you keep your country living. I totally get that it's what you want. Here's an amazing insight. Different people have different values and not everyone wants to live in the countryside and commute an hour each way. In fact, most people don't.

    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • UsagiUsagi Feminazgul Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Or the traffic on said interstates makes it nearly impossible to commute in a reasonable fashion, or have you never been to the suburbs surrounding NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, LA etc? Trust me, a 2 1/2 hour traffic laden commute is not unusual in any of those places and that plus the anticipation of public transportation more than makes the move to the downtown areas worth it in my mind.

    And also, hey I don't have to drive for an hour to do stuff, which really gets old after a while.

    Jormungandr? Damn near killed 'er!
  • hectorsehectorse Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Druhim wrote: »
    Djeet wrote: »
    Druhim wrote: »
    uh, that still isn't an asset because you owe much more than you're bringing in from rent
    that's not how assets vs liabilities work
    being able to make some money off something you owe a couple hundred grand on doesn't make that couple hundred grand in debt magically an asset, it's still very much a liability

    not advising against buying, just clarifying that the money you owe on a house is NOT an asset except in magical reverse logic land where you frolic with unicorns and gumdrop fairies

    It's both an asset and a liability. If I can sell it for more then I owe on it it's a net asset. If I owe on it more then I can get for it it's a net liability. If it's generating net positive cash flow for the owner it's most definitely an asset.

    Being a prat about it doesn't make you right and it's not nearly as cool as your probably think it is.

    You don't realize the net gain until you actually sell it, so it's still a liability until you have it paid off or actually manage to sell it because value is not static and you may well end up selling at a loss (as many recent sellers can attest). If it's generating cash flow, that cash is an asset but you still have a much larger liability in the amount you owe on the house. And that cash flow from renting is by no means assured. You could end up with an empty rental or having to rent at a lower rate but still having to pay off the same mortgage. You can call me a prat all you want, but I'm just being clear that the amount you owe on your house is a liability, pure and simple. There's just no way around it and any claims to the contrary are attempts to confuse (or are coming from someone who's confused).

    Again, I absolutely am not and never have suggested that buying is wrong or stupid. But lots of people have silly notions about how a house is this big asset even when they've only paid down a quarter of the capital on it. No, it's not.

    I came to agree with everything Druhim said. As a homeowner and landlord of 4 houses and 7 department units (yes credentials), I can say that no house or apartment unit will ever be an asset until it's completely paid off. Thinking otherwise is foolish and if you don't think so, stop paying your mortgage and see what happens. Having positive cashflow is great and one of the reasons we get into this business for, but it's not everything there is to it. Somehow it got ingrained on the minds of the populace that by dropping $5k and opening a mortgage on their new shiny house, they somehow became homeowners of a $250k asset. Not true.

    Most people entering the homeowning market are doing it out of pure misguided optimism. Most people will not work their mortgage like the HUUUUGE debt it is, not paying against capital and instead increasing their personal CC debt when their income situation change for the better, which not always happens.

    "Yeah I can rent my houses and they'll pay themselves off!"

    Renting is time consuming and requires a very special dedication that most people don't have. Renting is also very volatile and fickle and without a nice business model it can fall flat on its butt. My father's renting business is a testament for that. You also have to be on the top of the game with amenities, upgrades and maintenance. Bad tenants are malaria and you have to evict them, sometimes causing you months of court troubles and fees.

    People need to realize that when "buying" a house, in the end, they still own a fuckton of money that they might never profit or even pay in their lifetime

    Buying a house is just the start of another job

  • DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Registered User
    edited June 2010
    I think the moral of the story for me is that I should definitely move, whether I buy or rent. I have a reverse commute right now - I live in Philly, paying high rent, and I commute away from philly to my job in the 'burbs. not very cost-effective.

  • FiggyFiggy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I was watching a real estate reality show the other day where one house hunter said the following:

    "Well, our lender is a professional, and he does this for a living. We've been approved for a $375,000 mortgage, so if that's what he says we can afford, then I think we should trust him."

    No. Bad. Silly Americans. That's what got you folks into this in the first place. Your lender is not your friend. Your lender isn't looking out for your best interests. It is up to you to decide whether or not you can afford what you are buying.

    Use mortgage calculators, add utilities, add taxes, add insurance, add maintenance, add everything. Then, see if that still fits into your monthly budget. Don't have a monthly budget? That's ok, but you have no business buying a house in that case.

    daniant wrote:
    Alright, looks like I'm giving up golden showers for Lent.
    XBL : Figment3 · SteamID : Figment · Website : www.nathanswyers.com
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Figgy wrote: »
    I was watching a real estate reality show the other day where one house hunter said the following:

    "Well, our lender is a professional, and he does this for a living. We've been approved for a $375,000 mortgage, so if that's what he says we can afford, then I think we should trust him."

    No. Bad. Silly Americans. That's what got you folks into this in the first place. Your lender is not your friend. Your lender isn't looking out for your best interests. It is up to you to decide whether or not you can afford what you are buying.

    Use mortgage calculators, add utilities, add taxes, add insurance, add maintenance, add everything. Then, see if that still fits into your monthly budget. Don't have a monthly budget? That's ok, but you have no business buying a house in that case.

    God, yes.
    Getting approved for a loan does not necessarily mean you can afford the loan. While lenders are generally averse to high risk, the fact remains that they also get to foreclose if you default and so they're better able to recover some of that loan in the event you default, while you can lose everything.

    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think the moral of the story for me is that I should definitely move, whether I buy or rent. I have a reverse commute right now - I live in Philly, paying high rent, and I commute away from philly to my job in the 'burbs. not very cost-effective.

    Yeah, that's certainly not a situation to be in.

    I know somebody who commutes from downtown Seattle to Bremerton, but that's primarily because their ferry fares are paid by their employer, their job is walking distance from the terminal, and they like being in the city on evenings and weekends. But that's definitely an outlier case.
    There isn't a demand for housing anywhere right now, yet the prices are still ridiculously lopsided. It would cost me $250k probably for a house and plot in the city that I paid $50k for an hour away. I could probably find a good $50k to $75k home within 20 minutes if I looked hard enough. The money I save buying in a rural town and commuting far outweighs the benefits of not commuting. It'd take a lifetime to recoup the money spent on the house in the city that I didn't spend on commuting.

    I think anyone that spends a fortune just to live in the "city" is a silly goose. The benefits don't outweigh the costs imo. Especially when commuting along interstate highways makes the commute a non-issue. Unless of course you just can't drive for whatever reason.

    Again, depends what value you place on your time. Honestly, I'm more than willing to pay a couple/few hundred extra dollars a month to save myself thirty or even forty hours of commuting. That's gained sleep, gained time with my wife, etc. Being closer to the city on weekends for leisure activities is just gravy.

  • FiggyFiggy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Druhim wrote: »
    Figgy wrote: »
    I was watching a real estate reality show the other day where one house hunter said the following:

    "Well, our lender is a professional, and he does this for a living. We've been approved for a $375,000 mortgage, so if that's what he says we can afford, then I think we should trust him."

    No. Bad. Silly Americans. That's what got you folks into this in the first place. Your lender is not your friend. Your lender isn't looking out for your best interests. It is up to you to decide whether or not you can afford what you are buying.

    Use mortgage calculators, add utilities, add taxes, add insurance, add maintenance, add everything. Then, see if that still fits into your monthly budget. Don't have a monthly budget? That's ok, but you have no business buying a house in that case.

    God, yes.
    Getting approved for a loan does not necessarily mean you can afford the loan. While lenders are generally averse to high risk, the fact remains that they also get to foreclose if you default and so they're better able to recover some of that loan in the event you default, while you can lose everything.

    And they also know jack shit about your monthly budgeting skills, your spending habits, your actual job security, etc.

    You might have X income and Y debt, but there are so many other factors involved in deciding what you can afford (when it comes to anything, really) that your lender is not there to give you advice.

    daniant wrote:
    Alright, looks like I'm giving up golden showers for Lent.
    XBL : Figment3 · SteamID : Figment · Website : www.nathanswyers.com
  • FiggyFiggy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    SkyCaptain wrote: »
    Druhim wrote: »
    uh, nope
    no one's telling him he shouldn't enjoy it
    some of us are just pointing out that housing prices there seem like a good deal because there's not nearly as much demand for housing as there is in higher priced areas
    There isn't a demand for housing anywhere right now, yet the prices are still ridiculously lopsided. It would cost me $250k probably for a house and plot in the city that I paid $50k for an hour away. I could probably find a good $50k to $75k home within 20 minutes if I looked hard enough. The money I save buying in a rural town and commuting far outweighs the benefits of not commuting. It'd take a lifetime to recoup the money spent on the house in the city that I didn't spend on commuting.

    I think anyone that spends a fortune just to live in the "city" is a silly goose. The benefits don't outweigh the costs imo. Especially when commuting along interstate highways makes the commute a non-issue. Unless of course you just can't drive for whatever reason.

    Stop being so self-centered. Is it really too hard for you to understand that different people value things differently than you?

    And in what income bracket are we talking that it's going to take you a fucking lifetime to make up the difference between a country home and a city home? A lifetime to make $200,000, minus the cost of commuting?

    Edit: Christ, off the top of my head it would cost me $600/mo to commute from where I live to Toronto. (Gas, parking, car maintenance) That's $7,200 a year to commute.

    daniant wrote:
    Alright, looks like I'm giving up golden showers for Lent.
    XBL : Figment3 · SteamID : Figment · Website : www.nathanswyers.com
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    SkyCaptain wrote: »
    I think anyone that spends a fortune just to live in the "city" is a silly goose. The benefits don't outweigh the costs imo. Especially when commuting along interstate highways makes the commute a non-issue. Unless of course you just can't drive for whatever reason.

    I think anyone that spends any amount of money to live in the "country" is a silly goose. There are no benefits that can be justified by any costs imo. Especially when commuting along interstate highways makes teh commute hell. Unless of course you live where people also live.

    But opinions you know...we all have them, and they're all different, and yours just happens to be the less popular one based on how many people live like you do.

  • SkyCaptainSkyCaptain Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Figgy wrote: »
    And in what income bracket are we talking that it's going to take you a fucking lifetime to make up the difference between a country home and a city home? A lifetime to make $200,000, minus the cost of commuting?
    It's not making the money, it's the difference between commuting versus the cost of living in the city. If you buy a house for $50k and commute two hours per day for a cost of $6 (30 mpg car and $3/gal gas), that's approximately $125 a month. Compare that to a $200k house (difference of $150k divided by $125 = 1200 months, or 100 years) for break even. Obviously that doesn't account for maintenance and other travel related costs, but still... 100 years to break even on gas alone? Feh.
    Edit: Christ, off the top of my head it would cost me $600/mo to commute from where I live to Toronto. (Gas, parking, car maintenance) That's $7,200 a year to commute.
    That's still twenty years to break even. These calculations are also ignoring interest on the homes, which would obviously be even more greatly in favor of commuting.
    But opinions you know...we all have them, and they're all different, and yours just happens to be the less popular one based on how many people live like you do.
    Like what? A human being rather than a silly goose stuck in a cage?

    The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
  • MichaelLCMichaelLC In what furnace was thy brain? ChicagoRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Druhim wrote: »
    a cage? really?

    Well, there are undoubtedly more BDSM clubs in a city.

    Excision wrote: »
    My girlfriend is going down tonight!

    Steam:MichaelLC
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    SkyCaptain wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    This depends whether you found work in that small town, or whether you commute into the city. If you commute into the city, you're spending upwards of 40+ hours a week on the road...what value are you placing on your time? Then there's also gas.
    Indy is only an hour away. At most you're spending 10 hours a week on the road.
    And in Miami, it can take you an hour to drive ten miles in the middle of the day. In NYC you don't even need a car (so good bye insurance, repair, gas, etc) so hellooooo money you don't have to spend.
    Some people like living in the city, some people like living in the country, some people like living in a tent in the woods. What the fuck is your problem with people choosing where they live? Some people hate the out doors.

    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    hectorse wrote: »
    I came to agree with everything Druhim said. As a homeowner and landlord of 4 houses and 7 department units (yes credentials), I can say that no house or apartment unit will ever be an asset until it's completely paid off. Thinking otherwise is foolish and if you don't think so, stop paying your mortgage and see what happens. Having positive cashflow is great and one of the reasons we get into this business for, but it's not everything there is to it. Somehow it got ingrained on the minds of the populace that by dropping $5k and opening a mortgage on their new shiny house, they somehow became homeowners of a $250k asset. Not true.

    Is you want to slavishly hold to definitions of accounting terms then have at it. But if you want to be honest about it, on a balance sheet the value of the house will be an asset, and the obligations to pay for the house will be a liability. Simple arithmetic will determine if it's a net asset or liability. Just cause there's a lien on it doesn't mean it's not an asset.

    Saying "it's a lot of debt," and "you don't really own it til you've paid it off," while true, doesn't seem to add much to the analysis, since these things are self-evident if you bother to read the paperwork at closing. OK, so for those of you who don't know, if you don't make your mortgage payment the bank will evict you and seize your property. If you don't pay your taxes the state will evict you and seize your property. Man, what a newsflash that was.
    Most people entering the homeowning market are doing it out of pure misguided optimism. Most people will not work their mortgage like the HUUUUGE debt it is, not paying against capital and instead increasing their personal CC debt when their income situation change for the better, which not always happens.

    "Yeah I can rent my houses and they'll pay themselves off!"

    I think you're living in the media world of a few years ago. Lending has tightened up enough so that only people with good credit who can come up with a downpayment has any chance of qualifying for a loan. Also just cause I say cashflow positive in my post doesn't mean I'm shilling some Tony Robbins bullshit.

    DiscoZombie wanted discussion on the relative merits of buying vs renting from a financial perspective. Ownership is most definitely financially relevent in the analysis. Though as an owner of rental properties, you already know that.

    I'm not telling people to buy properties and then rent them out, but once you've bought a house, renting it out is an option (yes even if there's a lien on it). You have no such option when you rent.

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Djeet wrote: »
    hectorse wrote: »
    I came to agree with everything Druhim said. As a homeowner and landlord of 4 houses and 7 department units (yes credentials), I can say that no house or apartment unit will ever be an asset until it's completely paid off. Thinking otherwise is foolish and if you don't think so, stop paying your mortgage and see what happens. Having positive cashflow is great and one of the reasons we get into this business for, but it's not everything there is to it. Somehow it got ingrained on the minds of the populace that by dropping $5k and opening a mortgage on their new shiny house, they somehow became homeowners of a $250k asset. Not true.

    Is you want to slavishly hold to definitions of accounting terms then have at it. But if you want to be honest about it, on a balance sheet the value of the house will be an asset, and the obligations to pay for the house will be a liability. Simple arithmetic will determine if it's a net asset or liability. Just cause there's a lien on it doesn't mean it's not an asset.

    Saying "it's a lot of debt," and "you don't really own it til you've paid it off," while true, doesn't seem to add much to the analysis, since these things are self-evident if you bother to read the paperwork at closing. OK, so for those of you who don't know, if you don't make your mortgage payment the bank will evict you and seize your property. If you don't pay your taxes the state will evict you and seize your property. Man, what a newsflash that was.
    Most people entering the homeowning market are doing it out of pure misguided optimism. Most people will not work their mortgage like the HUUUUGE debt it is, not paying against capital and instead increasing their personal CC debt when their income situation change for the better, which not always happens.

    "Yeah I can rent my houses and they'll pay themselves off!"

    I think you're living in the media world of a few years ago. Lending has tightened up enough so that only people with good credit who can come up with a downpayment has any chance of qualifying for a loan. Also just cause I say cashflow positive in my post doesn't mean I'm shilling some Tony Robbins bullshit.

    DiscoZombie wanted discussion on the relative merits of buying vs renting from a financial perspective. Ownership is most definitely financially relevent in the analysis. Though as an owner of rental properties, you already know that.

    I'm not telling people to buy properties and then rent them out, but once you've bought a house, renting it out is an option (yes even if there's a lien on it). You have no such option when you rent.

    I wonder what the median, mean and distribution is on time of homeowners renting out their houses while also inhabiting said house.

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    SkyCaptain wrote: »
    But opinions you know...we all have them, and they're all different, and yours just happens to be the less popular one based on how many people live like you do.
    Like what? A human being rather than a silly goose stuck in a cage?

    I'm sorry you don't value cultural enrichment and experience, the essence of being human.

  • SkyCaptainSkyCaptain Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The city is an hour away. I don't have to live in the city and pay the outrageous rent/mortgage prices to be able to partake of it. That's the only point I'm making and you're all being silly geese about it. Live in the "country" where the cost of living is so much cheaper, even though it's an hour or less away from the ever so awesometasticwonderfulohmygoditsgreat city. Or you could live in the city and pay way more than it's worth and deal with all the problems of living in a city.

    No brainer to me.

    The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Problems of living in the city? I can walk to nice tapas bars, grocery stores, pubs, Thai, Indian, Ethiopian, and a whole slew of other good ethnic food is either walking distance or a short bus ride away. Living in the city definitely has its advantages and I can go out for some drinks with friends and just walk or bus home without having to worry about driving under the influence or a designated driver. Different strokes for different folks, I get that you think the city is some plague infested warren of scum but I love the benefits of being in the thick of it.

    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    SkyCaptain wrote: »
    The city is an hour away. I don't have to live in the city and pay the outrageous rent/mortgage prices to be able to partake of it. That's the only point I'm making and you're all being silly geese about it. Live in the "country" where the cost of living is so much cheaper, even though it's an hour or less away from the ever so awesometasticwonderfulohmygoditsgreat city. Or you could live in the city and pay way more than it's worth and deal with all the problems of living in a city.

    No brainer to me.

    Indianapolis is an hour away and culturally void to boot. You probably think The Olive Garden is fine italian dining.

  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Druhim wrote: »
    Problems of living in the city? I can walk to nice tapas bars, grocery stores, pubs, Thai, Indian, Ethiopian, and a whole slew of other good ethnic food is either walking distance or a short bus ride away. Living in the city definitely has its advantages and I can go out for some drinks with friends and just walk or bus home without having to worry about driving under the influence or a designated driver. Different strokes for different folks, I get that you think the city is some plague infested warren of scum but I love the benefits of being in the thick of it.

    This.

    I actually live in the outskirts of the suburbs where rent is MUCH cheaper and we're looking to move inner-city as soon as possible.

    I totally consider the higher cost of rent ($3-400 a month) worth the convenience of living within walking distance of a shopping centre, a beautiful bike path, several theatres and dozens of restaurants.

    Also, some of us do like to be green and use our car as little as possible. Having to drive to pick up basic groceries grows very tiresome after a while.

    The difference in rent may be greater than the cost of gas, but you have to remember you're also saving time.

    sharasugar_80.png sharanomsugar_80.png
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Janson wrote: »
    Druhim wrote: »
    Problems of living in the city? I can walk to nice tapas bars, grocery stores, pubs, Thai, Indian, Ethiopian, and a whole slew of other good ethnic food is either walking distance or a short bus ride away. Living in the city definitely has its advantages and I can go out for some drinks with friends and just walk or bus home without having to worry about driving under the influence or a designated driver. Different strokes for different folks, I get that you think the city is some plague infested warren of scum but I love the benefits of being in the thick of it.

    This.

    I actually live in the outskirts of the suburbs where rent is MUCH cheaper and we're looking to move inner-city as soon as possible.

    I totally consider the higher cost of rent ($3-400 a month) worth the convenience of living within walking distance of a shopping centre, a beautiful bike path, several theatres and dozens of restaurants.

    Also, some of us do like to be green and use our car as little as possible. Having to drive to pick up basic groceries grows very tiresome after a while.

    The difference in rent may be greater than the cost of gas, but you have to remember you're also saving time.

    I walk to and from work to downtown Seattle and it's literally 15 minutes. I have an extra 45 minutes to enjoy everything each day. I can buy fresh and varied produce every day at the Pike Place Market and walk home with it and start preparing a fresh salad before the person who commutes home is even halfway home.

  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    There's also a lot of great parks in and around downtown. When I lived up on first hill, I loved heading over to Cal Anderson on a sunny day and just chilling there. Or if I can make it to Salumi while they're open, grab one of their fantastic sandwiches and enjoy it at waterfall park. All within either walking distance or a short bus ride.

    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I can go to several James Beard nominated and winning restaurants within walking distance of my place. You've likely never heard of those awards because there haven't ever been any places nominated in Indianapolis that reached the semi finalist list.

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I'll also refer you to the walking distance food thread for PAX in the PAX forum as an example the benefits of living in the city. Of course I contributed heavily to that thread so there might be a slight bias there.

  • NODeNODe Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Look, guys, lets just all agree that SkyCaptain is a terrible person for living in the country and should be forced to sell his house and move as soon as possible.

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    NODe wrote: »
    Look, guys, lets just all agree that SkyCaptain is a terrible person for living in the country and should be forced to sell his house and move as soon as possible.

    No, we all agree he should shut up for thinking he's a genius simply for having an opinion. I mean, how dare anyone make a choice different than he, lest they become a silly goose.

  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    NODe wrote: »
    Look, guys, lets just all agree that SkyCaptain is a terrible person for living in the country and should be forced to sell his house and move as soon as possible.

    No one is saying that. Oddly, Sky is the only one that's insisting that everyone else is stupid for having different values than him. This whole idiotic argument started over the simple truth that areas with low property values reflect the simple fact that there's less demand for those properties. And from that Sky decided to try and prove us all wrong for wanting an urban lifestyle.

    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • SkyCaptainSkyCaptain Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Janson wrote: »
    Also, some of us do like to be green and use our car as little as possible. Having to drive to pick up basic groceries grows very tiresome after a while. The difference in rent may be greater than the cost of gas, but you have to remember you're also saving time.

    It takes me two minutes to walk to the grocery store. Or did you think small towns don't have grocery stores?

    The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2010
    Janson wrote: »
    I totally consider the higher cost of rent ($3-400 a month) worth the convenience of living within walking distance of a shopping centre, a beautiful bike path, several theatres and dozens of restaurants.

    Funny how you only quote the bits that make you seem like you're not talking bullshit Sky.

    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    SkyCaptain wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    Also, some of us do like to be green and use our car as little as possible. Having to drive to pick up basic groceries grows very tiresome after a while. The difference in rent may be greater than the cost of gas, but you have to remember you're also saving time.

    It takes me two minutes to walk to the grocery store. Or did you think small towns don't have grocery stores?

    What's in season right now?

  • SkyCaptainSkyCaptain Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Druhim wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    I totally consider the higher cost of rent ($3-400 a month) worth the convenience of living within walking distance of a shopping centre, a beautiful bike path, several theatres and dozens of restaurants.

    Funny how you only quote the bits that make you seem like you're not talking bullshit Sky.

    I didn't feel like listing all the places I have access to. We have a theater, we have a bike path, we have a pool and park, we have a small shopping center, and plenty of restaurants with enough variety to suit my needs.

    The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    SkyCaptain wrote: »
    Druhim wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    I totally consider the higher cost of rent ($3-400 a month) worth the convenience of living within walking distance of a shopping centre, a beautiful bike path, several theatres and dozens of restaurants.

    Funny how you only quote the bits that make you seem like you're not talking bullshit Sky.

    I didn't feel like listing all the places I have access to. We have a theater, we have a bike path, we have a pool and park, we have a small shopping center, and plenty of restaurants with enough variety to suit my needs.

    Do you know what good northern indian food tastes like? or southern?

  • SkyCaptainSkyCaptain Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Yes. It tastes like Indians. Tough and sun-dried. :P

    The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
  • TubeTube Working As Intended Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited June 2010
    What the fuck are you people even arguing about? Shut up.

1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.