I'm baaaack...

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Welcome back, Rich! Sorry to hear that you are still having some health issues, and most definitely hope for the best.

Hmm... As someone who planned to move after retirement, and then discovered how easy it was to just stay put, my first thought was that maybe you will stay in Tampa(?). Or not. Missouri and SF are both so attractive, in very different ways.

Maybe you decided to move somewhere entirely different. That's it! Choice #4.

Thanks for the kind words.

RE: choice 4, I never thought of that. NOLA would a good candidate.

 

[stargazer08]

I was just thinking I hadn't seen a post from you in a while. I'm mostly a lurker here. Great to have you back.

All 3 are great choices. I'm guessing #3 just for the mild winter weather.

Personally MO would be my pick. Much better digs for horseback riders like me.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

What? Dallas was not one of your choices?

Hmmm...since your username is still Rich_in_Tampa, my guess is y'all picked option number 3.

I'm sorry to hear about your ailments...my papa always told me three drops of kerosene mixed with a teaspoon of sugar would cure anything.



So nice to hear from you darlin'.

Good to be heard from. Sounds like you are in good spirits.

P.S. Your Papa was wrong, bless him. But it might work with a good bourbon.

 

[Stanley]

None are my cup of tea and I have no idea what you would like. But, I would pick San Francisco. Combine that with several 2-3 week trips every year to visit the kids in MO. After all we are retired and can travel now.

 

[bbbamI]

Good to be heard from. Sounds like you are in good spirits.

P.S. Your Papa was wrong, bless him. But it might work with a good bourbon.

'Spirits' .... 'Bourbon'... Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Koolau]

Just one (perhaps) practical question, Rich. Which of these localities offers you the best health care for your particular situation? If that doesn't enter into the equation, I too would stay in Tampa and VISIT SF (often!) as well as Columbia.

Best to you. Here's hoping you good mileage.

 

[califdreamer]

Great to have you back Rich! Any one of the three choices would be great, just depends on which strong points appeal to you most. I have an inkling it might be Tampa.

Sending good wishes your way!

 

[golfnut]

I'd go with Columbia, MO. College town, wine ain't too bad a little south of there (St. James-not exactly Napa but still good imho), no earthquakes, and 4 seasons - can't imagine winters are that severe, cheap/moderate cost of living, good fishing and golf. You can always take a few weeks to vacation in Tampa or S.F.

 

[haha]

Rich, hi. I hope you will be OK.

I presume you know where you want to live. But if a doctor can't retire in the Bay area, who possibly could?

You could always rent. If somehow it gets too expensive for you, just high tail it back to the Midwest, which should never be too expensive.

One thing that occurs to me- will one of your children feel rejected if you choose to live near the other one?

This even concerns me, although I live 1.5 miles from one son and 4.5 from the other.

Sibling rivalry can go deep.

Ha

 

[urn2bfree]

I have live in Columbia, MO. I have visited the other two places in the summer. The "sultry ness" of Florida is not really that different from Midwestern summers. Plenty of heat and humidity in Columbia to rival Florida...but other than the daily rainstorms the summers are similar enough to cancel the summer weather out as a factor. I would also take issue with calling Columbia much of a vibrant intellectual community. By comparison to its surrounding it is an oasis of educational diversity in a sea of less educated rural homogeneity, but compared to San Francisco or even to Tampa it is embarrassingly barren. The shopping and food choices are severely limited. the nearest international airport is 120 miles away. Regardless of the university being there, Columbia is quite simply not in the same league as the other two cities (figuratively or literally- no major league sports for over 100 miles). Add in the cold winters, the higher taxes in MO vs FL and good ole inertia....and I would stay in Tampa. But then again as a physician myself I would rather take a part time job taking tickets at Disneyworld than do another minute of medical work when I finally get to hang up my stethoscope...so of course YMMV.

 

[obgyn65]

Welcome back, Rich. To answer your question, I would vote for Columbia, MO.

 

[clifp]

Welcome back Rich great to have you back. I am partial to San Francisco, although only if they replaced all of the elected officials and half the states residents.

 

[Ronstar]

Great to be seeing your posts again Rich! I would have to go with #2. I like the midwest, and prefer small towns over SF and Tampa.

 

[Buckeye]

I vote for Tampa (I live in the Tampa area also).

I'm originally from the Seattle area and miss all that it has to offer (like SF), but I can't give up the sunshine. My mother moved here about 2 years ago from Seattle and I know the warmth and sunshine has added years to her life.

I also lived over 15 years in the Midwest and there is no way I would go back to those winters.

Stay in Tampa and travel to meet your other needs!

Hmmm. We haven't heard from you for awhile. Have you been busy moving?

 

[Dawg52]

Sorry about your health problems. Would you like me to write you a prescription for the med's I take? I highly recommend them.

I would stay put. I'm sure your have lot's of friends in sunny Tampa and what's not to like about the beach? Your kids are just a hop and a skip away via air travel.

 

[Walt34]

I'd go for Tampa. If I had it my way the only snow I'd ever see again would be on TV.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Just one (perhaps) practical question, Rich. Which of these localities offers you the best health care for your particular situation? If that doesn't enter into the equation, I too would stay in Tampa and VISIT SF (often!) as well as Columbia.

Best to you. Here's hoping you good mileage.

Thanks, Koolau, and a good question. I am well-connected medically in Tampa but the SF bay area is inter-galactically recognized for excellent care. Edge: SF.

 

[donheff]

Welcome back Rich. No preference on location although I was in St Pete's yesterday cruising around the waterfront and eating downtown. Seemed like a nice location. Don't forget to keep us posted whatever you choose.

 

[NanoSour]

I obviously haven't posted much over the years, but have been a pretty avid reader of the forum since 2002. It's great to see you posting again Rich. Wish you all the best with regards to your health and happiness.

Although I suspect it's not your choice, I'm going with #1. SF is one of my top 2 cities in the world (the other being Rome) and there is just something energizing about northern California. For me anyway.

Nano

 

[grasshopper]

Health issues can throw some water on your FIRE. I was just diagnosed with T1a PC and am on expectant management.

I went to school in the Bay area, and loved it day trips to Napa excellent.

Does the Grateful Dead still have free concerts?

I am in the southern Arizona mountains now love the heat.

 

[Gumby]

Welcome back, Rich. My family all live in MO. Unfortunately, the last 30 years of living here in CT have rendered it impossible for me to return there, except on a tourist visa.

I'd choose SF first, but I'm betting you chose Tampa.

 

[Midpack]

Welcome back, sorry to hear about your health problems, but you sound like you're taking it all in stride.

We love SF, but we couldn't afford to live there, and with my luck I'd buy a house directly on a fault line.

We lived in Lakeland FL for 3 years, kept a boat on Tampa Bay, and visited Tampa, Clearwater and Orlando often. The novelty wore off pretty quickly and we wouldn't go back, but we also realize ours is not the majority view. We still have friends in the area who would never leave.

So I have to vote Col MO by default. The Midwest just isn't as exciting as right and left, but the COL is helpful and if you live near a world class city like a Chicago, it ain't half bad. I don't know what Columbia MO has to offer.

 

[urn2bfree]

... if you live near a world class city like a Chicago, it ain't half bad. I don't know what Columbia MO has to offer.

COLUMBIA IS OVER 400 miles from Chicago. The nearest major airport is 2 hours drive away. I would say Tampa and SF are "almost as close" to Chicago as Columbia. I lived there for four years many years ago, but it has not changed that much from the little bland town it was back then. There are a few more chain restaurants.
No offense, as different folks like different things -but I can't emphasize enough how unimpressed my wife was on our return visits to Columbia over the last few years. She did not live there with me, so she has only seen Columbia as a brief visitor (as St Louisans we occasionally have attended sports tournaments for our kids in Columbia). She is from the northeast and we live a Midwest suburban life in St Louis county, but she would not live in Columbia on a bet...and at this point in my life I would find it sorely lacking as a retiree. But that is based on our interests in various ethnic foods, arts and culture, travel. If fishing, boating on small lakes or rivers, or hunting were our interests then Columbia might be i just fine. While Columbia is a college town, the "culture" interests of the college revolve around collegiate sports, and not the sort of college town feel I have seen in "classic" college towns.

 

[Bestwifeever]

COLUMBIA IS OVER 400 miles from Chicago. ....

I guarantee Midpack was not saying Columbia is near Chicago! Instead, saying although a Midwest city like Chicago has a lot to offer, he doesn't know what a Midwest city like Columbia might have.

Friends who have retired to college towns have found many more cultural events than the average student is ever aware of (one said of Champaign, he can have a glass of wine at home and be at a concert in ten minutes). Surely true of Columbia, home of the state's flagship public university.

 

[ls99]

No vote for where to go. Good to see you back.