second homes turn into financial disasters

Best way to save money is not to spend it...

Not to overspend it.

ask Obailout to bail them out, easy!

What is an obailout? And you don't need to keep cable in the 2 nd home

You should do what you can afford. And you should know through getting proper advice what you can afford. Duh.
That said, the thread headingwas meant tobe procative, surely. My second home, for example is anything but a disaster. Even in this economy, its careful selection has yielded an increase in value of about 350% in 13 years, funded a renovation of mycity apt, and provided a year round getaway for family and friens to share with us. Our life on the rock (manhattan) is improved immeasurably be having the option of easily slipping away whenever we have had enough to this little Eden. Headaches? Yes, some as with anything one owns. But quite manageable and on balance the benefits are far more significant to us.

Not sure you need to keep separate cars in the two homes. Even columbiacounty is more practical than that, he drives his expensive oversided car up the Taconic to visit the deer and cops he's so fond of.

Procative is the typo above, not procative.

Grass Mud Horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_Mud_Horse
The Caonima, literally "Grass Mud Horse", is supposedly a species of alpaca. The name is derived from a profanity (Chinese: 肏你妈/操你媽; pinyin: cào nǐ mā), ...
Etymology and species - Habitat - Formats - Political discourse

Urban Dictionary: Cao ni ma
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cao%20ni%20ma
In Mandarin (Chinese for you ignorants) means "fuck your mom" word for word. Very commonly used, Cao can be used as a stand-alone word for fuck. Ca...

> Even in this economy, its careful selection has yielded an increase in value of about 350% in 13 years,

Hamptons?
Bought in 1999 for how much?
Current market value?

apt23 has a second home in Miami, possibly to help her avoid paying NYS taxes.

The huge run up in Manhattan prices as well as the Hamptons, in my opinion, was all due to the Wall Street shenanigans. Yes, these were good investments; but without the pop from the "phantom money" since bailed out by the administration there wouldn't be monopoly money increases in price.

Completely agree w/ Kyle. My home in Ulster County has not appreciated by nearly that much (good for him for having that appreciation thus far), the annual tax/mortgage is significantly less than a full or half share in many beach areas. Not a fair comparison perhaps (Catskills vs Hamptons or Spring Lake) and I'm not a beach person anyway, but his point about the convenience of getting out of Manhattan has a certain intangible value. For those who do have hobbies that take up space (art, cars etc) having the extra breathing room for those pursuits is nice. But like anything, start small, don't get carried away and trade up when/if you desire and your finances are in line.

I think renting where you may look to buy is a great first step. See if you even like it there. Or how often you get there. Or if public transportation access matters or not (like LIRR or busline or whatever). See if you entertain more or less than you thout and the type of space you really would like ideally. See if you like garden and lawn care or can afford to pay someone else to do it or if you dont even want a yard. See if you make use of e ings you thout you would like the local theatee festival or beach or pool or tennis court.

I bought after staying wi friends for some weekends over two years and then renting in the ara for 7 years. Then i looked at a lot of homes in my price range. When i found my estate sale home, i knew e price was right and he place was perfect. Just the right amount of tlc needed and potential i could achieve reasonably. It was also in a AA location in a very desireable community.

My brother opted for a different type of second home. It was for his family more an entertaining so access to trains mattered less. Thhey would spend long summers there for years with the kids because he was off from work then. Appreciation mattered little and the cost was so modest and the home so simple that if it never gained a cent in value it was worth it to him. They chose a nice location but it was far from "hot.". Upkeep is minimal. And it made getting away possible...with two kids you dont so easily hop in a car and drive to a motel everytime you want to get away for a wekend. Much easier to have a home away from home all set up and ready.

For me it is all about quality of life. Live within your means. Save responsibly. Plan for retirement. Then use whats left to live. An important part of that for those lucky enough to have the means to aford it is a second home. Please excuse my ipad typos

i find your claim of 350% implausible.

we have done nicely with second homes and enjoy it thoroughly.

but 350%?

so you bought for $300K? now worth north of a million? really?

columbiacounty, you find all positive number implausible.

Add me to the club of "no, having the second home was definitely not a financial disaster."

I would agree with kylewest about living within your means. In some cases, having a first home is a financial disaster, if you buy more than you can afford. In other cases, having six homes is like having six dining room chairs......if you can afford it, and you know that, go have at it.

As usual, you can find a rule for anything if you look hard enough. To wit: "second homes turn into financial disasters".

CC: did you follow what happened in Hamptons RE since 1998? Before 1999 there were tons of moderately priced homes in the $150-$275K range. Pre-recession, the best among them indeed increased to about $650K to over $1MM. Even with the slide of the years, prices are very well above 1998 and in most cases prices are about 300%+. The market in the Hamptons is different than the markets in the Catskills or Columbia County, or Jersey Shore in many ways. Prices went up far faster and have held that gain better than in many places. Still, the recession caused about a 25% drop (more in some cases) even in the Hamptons, but much of the gains has been retained.

>market in the Hamptons is different than the markets in the Catskills or Columbia County

Woah, getting personal

> Still, the recession caused about a 25% drop (more in some cases) even in the Hamptons, but much of the gains has been retained.

Hamptons price increases post 98 just reflected the financial sector bubble and the drops have yet to reflect the needed financial sector right-sizing. let's face it, it has yet to start in earnest. as the sector is still bloated, so are Hamptons RE prices. same goes for manhattan's RE prices.

> "It is also not uncommon for people to underestimate the tax burden and then have to take an additional taxable withdrawal the following year to pay the previous year's taxes," says Mr. Maloon. The result is "paying new taxes to cover old taxes."

> "You must have the temperament to invest that lump sum to generate the income you need because that lump sum simply cannot be replaced."

Hey, bad for them. But in a way it's great for the taxpayer that older people with extra $ (at least temporarily) get into these type of messes due to being so much in love with housing. They think that renting is beneath them. Cannot avoid noticing that as taxpayers we benefit from that psychology. Imho this love affair with housing reflects in part a middle class aversion to any other non-real estate investment option. "A fool and his money are soon parted".

KW, your claim is that the price is up 4.5x, and per your 25% drop since the peak, that this was up 6x at the peak.

To put that in perspective, the SE condo index had Mannhattan up "only" 2.46x between 13 years ago and the peak. If you look at Case-Shiller from 13 years ago to the peak in each market, not a single one broke past 3x. Not NY, not SF, not LA, not DC, not Miami, not Phoenix, not Las Vegas.

You really think the bubble in the Hamptons outstripped every other market in the US, all "rich" and "bubble" cities included, by more than a factor of 2x? As in the other markets did no better than +200%, but the Hamptons did +500%?

why would it be hard to believe that a market for the rich, where the middle class was squeezed out, would increase significantly? NYC, for all it's rich, still has middle class roots. In the Hamptons, there's no rent regulation, no senior citizens in their places for decades, no projects, no skyscrapers, and no building on fringes like Riverside Boulevard.

KW, continuing the thought...

I have friends who recently bought a place in the Hamptons. Last sale was from about a dozen years ago (like your place), and they paid a price that was about 75% higher. Pretty much exactly matches the Manhattan price trajectory per the SE index during the intervening period, and a far cry from 350% higher.

Obviously kylewest is a liar.

Just checked the neighborhoodscout.com on appreciation rate on South Hampton properties. Some neighborhoods have averaged appreciations of nearly 300% since the 1990s. So, one should not be surprised to see quite a few appreciations hitting the 350% mark.

No, kylewest is a liar. That's his reputation around here.

Look, maybe I calculate 3x 6x wrong by giving percentages. I'm not a math genious. Here's what I meant plainly said: a house that sold for $175K in 1998 sold for $650K in 2007. That's 3.7 times the 1998 price so I call that 370% increase. With the present economy, that same home is selling for about $550 which is still 300% above purchase. Not every house in the Hamptons, but the homes in more desireable areas performed this way. 13 years ago there were tons of homes in the under $250K niche and many below $200K. Today that is no longer the case. While appreciation was much slower in some places (like the Springs), the homes in more desireable locations like the Village and Town of EH did outstandingly well. If things really increased only 75%, then there should still be tons of homes for about $260K-$350K in the village and town of East Hampton. Go ahead and find me those homes. I haven't looked lately, but I suspect you will instead find perhaps a handful in the $400K's with the inventory beginning to fill out in the $500K range in the EH today. I'm not selling and plan to own my home for many years to come, so I don't really have a horse in this race--but if I'm wrong and there is a $200K-$300K segment in East Hampton, I'm very open to someone just pointing it out. I haven't seen it.

> a house that sold for $175K in 1998 sold for $650K in 2007. That's 3.7 times the 1998 price so I call that 370% increase. With the present economy, that same home is selling for about $550 which is still 300% above purchase.

inonada's friends could buy it for $275K.

KW: for future reference. percent increase is new price divided by old price minus one. in your example, i.e. 175 K to 550K, percent increase is 214%.

"That's 3.7 times the 1998 price so I call that 370% increase."

Kyle, that's a 270% increase; you have to subtract out the original value.

Using your method, a house whose value declined to 99% of what it was worth when you bought it would still have a "99% increase" and a house whose value declined to 0.01 times its original value (think Detroit) would still be a "1% increase".

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but banks shouldn't be giving loans to people who can't make elementary calculations like this one. It pains us plebeians to see people having this kind of wealth while not being able to understand basic math.

I believe one reason, nobody mentioned, that The Hamptons has had terrific growth over the years and although has dipped a bit, it remains fairly strong - is it's extremely robust rental market. The rental market is the Hampton's bailout. If you are running thin owning two homes you can always rent you place in the Hamptons from labor to memorial day for outlandish prices. If you rent your place in the Hamptons for just the summer, you can easily cover taxes, cosst and at least a good part of your mortgage payments if not all. I am generalizing a bit but,there are plenty of dumps out east that this doesn't apply to - but it does apply to any most mid range hamptons homes and up. Few vacations areas have the rental put....

kylewest, did you check how much cash people put into renovating a $175K in order for it to sell for $650K? People are misguided by % increase as many used to buy beaten down houses, then invested $50-$200+K over years...

"If you are running thin owning two homes you can always rent you place in the Hamptons from labor to memorial day for outlandish prices."

Isn't it the opposite? Some of my family members in New Jersey are thinking about renting out their home for an exorbitant amount for the summer months and living in it the rest of the time. The summer is when renters pay through the nose.

>I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but banks shouldn't be giving loans to people who can't make elementary calculations like this one. It pains us plebeians to see people having this kind of wealth while not being able to understand basic math.

Wow, putting kylewest into bjw's category is LOW.

triple Z...I think we are talking about the same thing....

Cpalms,

You were picked on for screwing up holiday orders. Memorial day comes before Labor day. Not as you stated in your original post.

Nobody's getting anything right today. They all must be liars as columbiacounty would want people to believe.

KW, what CC and Triple_Zero said about how the calculations work.

BTW, 13 years ago from today is 1999, not 1998, and I said a dozen years (2000). The SE index would put a Manhattan 1998 => 2012 purchase at a 124% increase; a 1999 => 2012 purchase at a 117% increase; and a 2000 => 2012 purchase at a 77% increase.

Assuming the Hamptons followed a similar trajectory, that'd mean your nominal $550K home sold for around $300K in 2000 and around $250K in 1998/1999. Your original statements would have implied a $125K price in 1998/1999 and a $735K price in 2007.

Oh. Minus 1. I don't like that. But I'll do it. I amend my math accordingly. I am duly spanked. But this is really a kind of dopey argument if it even is an argument. Hamptons RE went through the roof and remains there even with a recession-driven slide backwards. The truism that value is all about location is as true for a second home as primary. There will always be people carrying on about how the prices will plummet any minute. For instance, people have been carrying on since 2008 on Streeteasy about how Manhattan prime RE is overvalued and how we'll all be back at 1990's pricing before you know it. Meanwhile, the barriers to entry in say the Greenwich Village RE market are nearly as high as they ever were. Location, location. Prices will fall/should fall/must fall/... Well, they haven't. If you waited for GV prices to come down then you likely saved yourself 20% if you timed it perfectly. But otherwise, 1990's pricing just hasn't happened and time marches on and 5 years of your life have passed and you just keep waiting.

As for the value of owning to begin with, just like owning versus buying a primary home, there are intangibles that if you value them and can afford them are worth paying for in a second home. For example, I love to garden. It keeps me sane (or at least more sane than I'd be otherwise although it apparently does nothing for my math skills). I've invested untold hours creating my gardens out east. Watching them mature over the seasons gives me tremendous happiness. Gardening is about process. It is about patience and beauty and the acceptance of unpredictability and what one cannot control. If I rented, I would not devote that kind of time to a garden or even necessarily have access to or permission to work in a yard. It is about quality of life. For us, our second home adds immeasurably in ways that renting would not and I'm grateful we can afford it. If the day comes that this changes we would adjust and find other things that make us happy. But the idea that a second home, as a rule, is a bad idea is just silly. In our case it was a very sound financial decision and a very positive life style decision.

KW, looking at random listing in the $500K-$600K range in East Hampton (except Springs), here's one that sold for $385K in 2000, now asking $600K (a 56% increase if they get this price):

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/42-Scallop-Ave-East-Hampton-NY-11937/32657922_zpid

I don't know East Hampton neighborhood standings, maybe this is not "more desirable", you tell me where I can find the $175K => $550K stuff, I'm curious to see.

Manhattan and Hamptons, besides location, benefit from the phantom Wall Street profits htat as taxpayers we are still paying back. Prices are "falsely inflated" due to this anomaly

"You were picked on for screwing up holiday orders. Memorial day comes before Labor day. Not as you stated in your original post."

Gotcha....monday morning, what can I say....

inonada: that is the Northwest Woods area. It's perfectly nice, but it is like the Springs insofaras not experiencing quite the increase in prices that the EH village and nearby EH town homes experienced, as I said above. The property you point to is further from town than the area to which I referred. This isn't a debate really worth having so I'm not taking time to do research here for a response. But a simple Streeteasy search will show that the stuff for sale under $400K is mostly just land or fringe locations. It takes a minimum of $500K+ to get into the area that is within say 2 miles of EH town proper. In 1998 you could get a home within that area for under $225 if you tried.

kylewest, please translate your message into shares of Sprint.

i have no argument with the benefit of second homes. i have enjoyed ours for many years and have seen some price appreciation as well. the problem i have is when you start with a claim of 350% and then fall back to you're not very good with math and what difference does it make anyway since you love your house and will never sell.

we should all enjoy what we have. i just don't see the need to make crazy claims about financial benefits that turn out to be wildly inflated.

Again. If you really want to check property appreciation rate at different neighborhoods, check web sites such as neighborhoodscout.com. No need to prove your points with the house that you own, or the house that my friend bought around there not long ago. How do you defend a sample size of one?

>i have no argument with the benefit of second homes.

Who do you think you are kidding? You are out chasing anyone who even contemplates buying, let alone someone who has owned for many years.

Because I would pay that price if kyle ever wanted to sell his Hamptons house.
I've seen the exterior of that house and that's worth money for the beautiful quality of that curb appeal.

The Hamptons are different because there are lovely houses, not big and showy, that people fall in love with as they drive, bike, walk by. There are many people who rent and are waiting for some of those houses to go on the market. Some people retire to the Hamptons, others live there year-round.
Money is out there in the hands of potential buyers.

In 1998 you sure could buy for 225k in the area kyle describes.

CC: I'm always nice to you. Take the edge of the posts to me, huh? No need for language like "fall back on". It's still pretty astounding what has happened in the Hamptons whether you call is a 250% or 350% increase in 12 years. The point was that what was $200K is now still up around $600K give or take in EH proper, Bridgehampton, Amagansett, Watermill... And vic, I don't know what you are trying to say...that Hamptons RE hasn't skyrocketed above the rate of other weekend communities in the Catskills or Jersey or Columbia County? That's surely not your point. Now, many have said the shockwaves of the recession haven't fully hit out there yet, and they may well be right. They may also be wrong. I'm just talking about what we've seen up to 2008 and then between 2008-2012. And so far, if you bought in the better Hamptons locations before the boom that started after 1999 (feel free to pick the year you think it actually began), you've done really well on the purchase were you to sell.

And the point of this whole thread: owning a second home is far from a disaster for many, many people. Quite the opposite, in fact. Let's not get too sidetracked from that point.

@ Hunter: I've come to appreciate your humor more and more. :)

I'd love to buy kyle's "disaster".

read what i said.

i am not suggesting that a second home or home ownership is a disaster.

i started out by saying that i found your claim of 350% implausible.

it would appear that is was not correct.

for cc, it was a bald-faced ill-intentioned lie. The reality is that kylewest isn't good with math. Not so different from a miserable curmudgeon who was forced into retirement because of the consequences of his malpractice at his firm.

Klewest, my point was as clear as crystal. Read my first rely of this thread. I made reference of neighborhoodscout.com that some neighbors in the hamptons had appreciation rate of near 300% since the 1990s to support your point.I start to think you may have a reading problem on top of your math problem.Just kidding.

@vic: lol
Meanwhile, I have to wait 3 more full days before I can get out there again. Can't wait. Now that I have a deer fence that rivals a habitat enclosure at the Bronx zoo, the garden is exploding in ways I've not seen in a couple of years. The deer devastated the gardens the last few years as they got more aggressive and began breaching the plastic fencing. No more. Now we got black powder-coated galvanized steel with 4x4 posts and very official looking gates. Fence pretty much disappears into the greenery despite the uber-substantial protection it offers. That fence cost a fortune, but after I was advised against putting out cyanide-laced salt licks I had few options. "Deer resistant" plants are a joke for Hamptons deer which eat just about everything. But not on my little 1/2 acre. Day lilies have a zillion buds. Hydrangea will be covered in blue and pink and purple in a couple of weeks. The rhodies are recovering and new leaves already cover the damages areas. Hosta leaves are already enormous.

"kyle's little half acre"
I'm not the only person stopping to admire his house.

KW, how about this one in Amagansett? Asking $650K (200 days at that price w/o success), sold for $275K in 2000:

http://streeteasy.com/hamptons/sale/646036-house-210-fresh-pond-rd-amagansett
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/210-Fresh-Pond-Rd-Amagansett-NY-11930/32661491_zpid

Speaking out of my aZZ, I'd have to say Hampton RE nearly doubled between '96 and '00 alone.
I distinctly remember looking at houses for sale in the $400k range that ended in the $800K by the millenium for like kind. That would be Water Mill area.
I remember this time well as some friends of mine who never picked up a hammer in their life were GC'ing and flipping houses.

Summer rentals can be very lucrative out there and pay for 80% of your yearly expenses.
Off peak is sometimes given away, just to have a tenant in their paying heat, electric , and taxes.

Like everything and anything, if your over leveraged your in trouble. If your not you likely plan on weathering the storm.

i don't think that's unlikely. the question is what happened since then? probably up a bunch through 2007/08 and then down a bunch. all in, maybe up 150% all in.

I've heard from people who have seen it and there are some problems with plumbing and erosion.
I don't know how much that will cost to fix or if you can live with the issues.

kyle's house is much nicer. (I'm guessing that the interior is nicer.)

columbiacounty is now pretending he didn't call kylewest a liar.

huntersburg: that house in the link doesn't compare to kyle's house.
It's not the same stop the car/get off the bike/want to look closer and daydream type of property.

"A fool and his money are soon parted".

Actually, I think the saying is "a fool and his money are invited everywhere."

:)

"A fool and his money are soon parted".
Actually, I think the saying is "a fool and his money are invited everywhere."

LOL "a fool and his money are invited everywhere till they are soon parted"

That house in Amagansett doesn't look so bad. Shld I call the agent and bid 500k?

>Shld I call the agent and bid 500k?

inonada could get it for $275K.

Go for it nyc10023, you're just itching for a project.

what kind of job can i get that can allow me to own a summer home and not be able to calculate percentages correctly (excluding law)?

it's all i can think about now. god bless america

music publicist

2nd homes are just like owning a range rover, fun to have but makes no financial sense. if you need mortgage to pay for the 2nd home, it is not for you. if you have mortgage on your first home, dont even think about 2nd home.
as per appreciation, forget about it, 2nd homes are a depreciating asset. Assume that in 50 years 100% of value will be land (or even more if a buyer has to pay to knock down your house).

truth, LOL.

In my experience, our second home purchases have proven to be better investments than our primary residences. The depressed market for second homes has made vacation property more affordable to purchase, while the rental rates just keep going up. I think it can be tough in some areas, but the North Fork of Long Island has been very very good to us. You do have to know how to pick 'em, and you do have to be very careful not to overspend. But isn't that always the case?

jbutton: you offer several conclusions but don't share your reasoning for each of them. Hard to understand how you arrived at your opinions. Maybe you can expand. What you write is contrary to the experience of many of us, so I'm curious.

I should only be so lucky to own and live in kyle's Hamptons house.
I will take the next, probably last,40 years of my life.

But that house would out-live me, and still be sellable.

Like saying in 1962, that a townhouse on the UWS or in GV would not hold value and be good only to sell as a tear-down today.

Kyle, some small areas will do well, just like the Hamptons did over the past 15-20 years (though chances for that continuing are small). But look at anywhere USA, and I mean a few hours from NYC, south, north, west, things are not looking good. You can't sell a house up in Millbrook/Sharon, let alone Putnam Valley or less desirable areas. Land is plentiful and construction costs are increasing but not by much. So price for a house in such areas will be capped by cost of new construction - depreciation. And as your house depreciates that cap is lower and lower. Only way that to change is by construction costs or land costs go up or by you (owner) spending money investing in the house. In addition, there will be far less 2nd home purchasers going fwd given economy/financial industry woes, and there are far too many homes for 1st home purchases to absorb.

As per my conclusion that if you have mortgage you can't afford a 2nd home, it is a generalization of course but 2nd home is luxury and if you can't pay for it with cash, it is probably going to be too expensive for you long term (there are exceptions though).

Truth, back in the 70s you would be $hiting ur pants owning that UWS townhouse. So great observation with a benefit of hindsight.

Well, I guess I don't buy the depreciating asset analysis. It would mean that all the 150 year old farm houses in Bridgehampton are worthless--indeed, they sell for millions. A well maintained home does not depreciate to zero in 50 years. So far as being able to afford to pay cash for a second home, I disagree that should be the litmus test for whether you can afford it. Certainly you need appropriate financial reserves to make it a reasoned purchase. But individual circumstances vary enough that I would tend to avoid blanket bright line rules for such things. As for resale, over and over again I say that RE purchases are primarily for people with long time horizons who will actually use the home(s) they are buying (unless they are truly very wealthy and the financial impact of owning is unimportant to them). And if you are going to overpay for a home or buy one in a marginal location or where there is a glut, then obviously you increase your risk of losing money.

Yet, a second home purchase may be right if it meaningfully enhances your quality of life, and is consistent with your current and projected budget and long term savings plan (as determined with a trusted independent financial advisor). There are many moving pieces to the calculation and a single test like "if can't buy it with all cash" is not very informative. Similarly, saying the home will have no value other than its land in x years is sort of silly.

I would agree, however, that the further you move from a location that is highly desirable and likely to remain so into the future, the more risk you assume and the less likely a second home purchase in that location is wise in a financial sense.

Kyle, bridgehampton farmhouses are worth a bunch for 3 reasons: land is worth a bunch, owners spent a fortune maintaining and renovating them, and construction costs in the hamptons are stupid expensive. Again Hamptons is unique just like manhattan is.

Houses are depreciating asssets just like cars are. only thing holding house values is land value. Consider Hamptons a 1960 Ferrari - worth more than when new. Consider most other areas 1980 Oldsmobile. if you are lucky/smart enough to buy in the right spot that is how you make money. Would you rather buy an old house or buy land and build new if costs are equal?

painfully, I agree with button on this---and I submit that, even in places like eastern LI, which bubbled well, alongside manhattan, properties have underperformed comparably prime primary residences in NYC---whatever the conditions, investments in second homes, generally, will underperform those in comparable primary markets

and of course farm houses in BH sell for millions more than they did years ago, so does all real estate floated by the bubbling, but built into that equation is significant deprecaition and the attendant expensive regular renovation and updating, and underperformance relative to comparable quality primary residence properties

and the jury is still out in the hamptons--lots of stale inventory on and off the market--few transactions, some at surprising high and low prices--betcha, if you wanted to sell a house out there before the end of the summer, you be shocked at what it would take to get it sold

In terms of mortgage being a litmust test, it was a gross generalization but i bet in 75% of cases it holds true. yes you may have 10m in your bank account and still have mortgage but you are in the minority. in most cases you take mortgage because your income at this point is enough but you don't have assets. and you know what happens to those people when a recession hits.

I buy with all cash. Agree that second home shouldn't be bought if already paying on first home.

I remember Manhattan and UWS in the 1970's. I had friends owning townhouses up there at the time.(in the west 80's, not Harlem)
They were not bricking (the Brit term for $hitting one's pants).
We were not $hitting while visiting. We wished we could own one and have great parties in it.
The city economy sucked but the townhouse owners at least were not renting.
You were as likely to get mugged there as other parts of Manhattan below 96th street. I never got mugged so maybe I was lucky and less likely to be $hitting. I traveled the world and there were cities more scary to induce $hitting one's pantalones. Ever go to Madrid in the 1970's?

I was renting, working, going out. We were told there was no hope for NYC and those of us who stayed still had good times.
It was scary in the city but we made it better somehow. Many would like the 1970's NYC back again. Not me, but I would miss home when I traveled back then.
and those townhouses still stand on those same UWS blocks.
More stores and restaurants around now. More tourists.

I was talking about kyle's house in the Hamptons, not Millbrook or those Putnam towns.
If I had bought a Hamptons home like kyle's in the 1970's, I'd be sitting pretty (not $hitty) right now. Or back then.
I don't know if kyle was ever out visiting the Hamptons in the 1970's. I was out there visiting and never met anybody who owned there that was $hitting their pants (except for an alkie artist).

His house is a classic keeper. Not a new cookie-cutter beach house in Amagansett.
That house in the link listing won't be around fifty years from now. Kyle's will be there, hopefully with kyle still living in it. "Old man kyle" puttering around in his garden.
The Hamptons are not anywhere USA.

lumping millbrook with putnam county is akin to saying that east hampton and islip are the same.

fool.

Truth, i made the example for upper west as a general NYC statement in the 70s and not about getting mugged but $hitting your pants about the investment people made 10years prior. Prices were down a lot and who's to say that could/would not happen again - again i made this example to point out that even in NYC things were selling way below construction costs.

I clearly don't know Kyle's house but from what you are saying it is a rare special house in a good location. Those characteristics make it more likely to hold value.

You have to think going forward, saying Hampton's did well over past 20years +, hence it is a good investment today is weak argument

county read my commment before responding: 'You can't sell a house up in Millbrook/Sharon, let alone Putnam Valley or less desirable areas' - clearly implying that even in millbrook whcih is a high end area you can't sell a house, let alone a lower end area like putnam valley.

i agree that the market is essentially frozen in high end areas (including east hampton). very few people need to sell so unwilling to lower prices to get buyers. nevertheless, there is no comparison between mill brook and putnam county.

all prime NYC real estate took a huge hit in the bankrupt 70's, townhouses especially, because of their unique security issues and the high crime rate

I assure you that prime townhouses and coops bought in the 70's at prices comparable to house bought in the hamptons, have way outperformed as investments--especially if you include cost of ownership

i own a second home (cash) and enjoy it--i accept that it is a relatively poor investment

if we need to hear so endlessly of kyle's hamptons house as icon of prudent second home investment, pls let us see it--otherwise the commentary just seems like some sort of inside blowharded flattery routine

JB:I don't know what cc writes.

Yes,agree but the owners I knew were still not $hitting even though prices were down from the 60's.
They lived there in the 70's, it was a "home" not an "investment" (this whole Manhattan RE "investment" mindset didn't exist back then for my friends,at least.) held on and value went up over the years. They could have sold at a loss, some did and fled NY but they stayed. It was their home.

I don't think buying an apt in the city to live in should be thought of as an investment.
If you don't have a mortgage on your city apt and have good financial sense and retirement savings,
live by the kyle plan of smart spending/saving, and don't consider it to be an investment -- it's a good thing.

I don't have kids to bequeath it to but I'm sure it will sell in fifty years to somebody who wants a beautiful home out at the beach. Will people ever stop wanting to go to the Hamptons or live there?
I can't imagine that - I think there will always be those of us who would just love to putter around in a nice house out there, growing old happily.

yikes: I don't out people's adresses or photos -- that's ph41's thing.

I don't need to flatter kyle. Let's say it's a house that I've noticed for years, before I read kyle on se.

That's how I will refer to it from here on: "A house in East Hampton that I've noticed for years."

kyle: I think it's still O.K. for you to refer to your house as "My house in East Hampton".
and to describe why you love it.

but I would still buy it...

do you think it'll be worth more in 5-10yrs?

and yikes: if I had the money back in the 1970's I would have bought a house out in East Hampton and would be happy today that I didn't buy in Manhattan, no matter what the $$ outperformed as investment.

JB:It would be worth more to me.

and I think that while those newer Amagansett-type beach houses wash away in the storms, eroding during the next 5-15 years, that the house in East Hampton that I've noticed for years will look better and be worth more$ and worth more as a home to enjoy living in.

>lumping millbrook with putnam county is akin to saying that east hampton and islip are the same.

>there is no comparison between mill brook and putnam county.

What a snob.

huntersburg: who was lumping, cc?

What's the dif if houses aren't selling in Millbrook or Putnam County? They are not selling in either (from what I've read here. I don't know anybody in Millbrook.)

I only know Woodstock. Houses sold there, even in the last few years.

and here in Italy, second homes are for the very rich who work in Milan.
They may have another home, Lake Como maybe.

They are more likely to buy a boat to cruise in nice weather. They go to Cortina to ski in winter but stay at a resort.

A second home in England is a cabana (more like a beach shack) in Brighton.
They also go to Cornwall for nice climate, stay in B&B's.

Spain and France go on day trips.
It all has to do with the availability of good transportation by rail.

Or as my European friend here says:
"Europeans are second home renters, not buyers. For vacation, not weekends.
Most prefer to travel around to more than one city/country while on their long vacations (an entitlement they grew to expect and..., I know). We go to Manhattan, where you don't like us so much!

The Germans have it great -- lots of vacation and paid stays at "spas" in the countryside."

YA!

Those homes they rent are usually the first and only homes of the owner renting it out.

> As per appreciation, forget about it, 2nd homes are a depreciating asset. Assume that in 50 years 100% of value will be land (or even more if a buyer has to pay to knock down your house).

How do you dismiss the 300% gains some people here have experienced?
Anomaly? Luck? Never happening again? Denial?

Poor math skills.