WSJ article: Retirees who sell "forever" homes

[pdxgal]

This article sounds intriguing but I can't read due to paywall:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/retirees-spend-time-money-for-forever-home-sell-it-11636402781

Anybody here read it? Whats the gist, and what did you think of it?

FWIW my BIL's folks kinda did this, moving from CT (due to high taxes) to NC where they bought a nice house and lived for a few years, then moved to a CCRC in Asheville that was less isolated than the house. Seems to me the phenomenon reflects a natural evolution of life priorities and coming to grips with the sometimes hard realities of aging.

 

[Sunset]

Cannot read it.
However, I've thought we might be facing this issue due to timing.
We are aging in IL, I've wanted to move for 10 yrs as IL has (IMHO) some serious State taxation issues and it's cold which limits activity 3-4 months of the year.

But, now I think if we buy a place in FL or WA and move, then how long will we be there before we move to a CCRC (current plan). Maybe we should just stay here for another 5 yrs or so and move to a CCRC directly ?

If I was 50, I'd consider my "forever" home, but now my "forever home" is looking like it's 6 ft underground

 

[MichaelB]

This article sounds intriguing but I can't read due to paywall:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/retirees-spend-time-money-for-forever-home-sell-it-11636402781

Anybody here read it? Whats the gist, and what did you think of it?

FWIW my BIL's folks kinda did this, moving from CT (due to high taxes) to NC where they bought a nice house and lived for a few years, then moved to a CCRC in Asheville that was less isolated than the house. Seems to me the phenomenon reflects a natural evolution of life priorities and coming to grips with the sometimes hard realities of aging.

The focus is retired couples that move, think they have found a “forever home” to live in retirement, but later realize they don’t like something about the new home/ location, and move again.

The closing paragraphs

But moving multiple times carries a big price tag. Forever homes are often cheaper than current homes, because the couples are downsizing. But, like any other sellers, retirees may face losses on their current properties because of the fluctuating market—losses that can pile up with each move. And, of course, every move brings more expenses—closing costs, commissions, moving charges and more.

That’s why some experts urge buyers to learn as much as they can about a new location before shelling out for a home. “It’s OK to take a couple of years to explore other areas and don’t jump in immediately,” says Mike Leverty, a financial adviser in Hudson, Wis. He advises his clients to rent in the area where they think they want to live, even if it is only part time. “You really have to view it as a second home and not a vacation,” he says. “Factor in amenities like shopping and healthcare—things you wouldn’t think about if you just vacationed there for a couple of weeks.”

 

[Chuckanut]

This is not surprising.

I know a number of people who thought they would retire to the rural, uncrowded countryside, only to find that medical needs, often urgent ones, made that problematic.

Also, the idea that the kids and grand kids would love to spend a few weekends a month at Grandma and Grandpa's rural home, turned out not to be true. For some reason the children and grand children have lives of their own.

 

[walkinwood]

See if you have access to the article through your local library. I was able to read it online through mine.


Nothing in there that you won't glean yourself if you think about the issue for a few minutes.

 

[Aerides]

I think people set themselves up for failure by declaring homes as "forever", because needs and wants change. So do neighborhoods.

And yes, one medical scare and you take note of how long the paramedics might take to arrive...

For now I enjoy being close to nice shopping and restaurants, multiple airports - that might be less of a priority in 20 years. I can imagine I'll tire of neighbors with young kids as well... in far less time!

 

[street]

This is not surprising.

I know a number of people who thought they would retire to the rural, uncrowded countryside, only to find that medical needs, often urgent ones, made that problematic.

Also, the idea that the kids and grand kids would love to spend a few weekends a month at Grandma and Grandpa's rural home, turned out not to be true. For some reason the children and grand children have lives of their own.

I beleive your observation is very true. I also have known retired folks that move to the city and are back to rural life (less populated) within a few years. There are pro's and con's to both choices. I personally don't believe I need to live within minutes of the best hospitals in the area. I'm going to die one way or another and people die each in the best medical facilities in the world.

Not starting any argument just saying that there is two sides to every story.

 

[CoolRich59]

I know a number of people who thought they would retire to the rural, uncrowded countryside, only to find that medical needs, often urgent ones, made that problematic.

I’m surprised that more people don’t factor this in.

I was having an ongoing discussion with some family members and said that, if we moved, I’d want to be within an hour of a level I trauma center. No one else thought it was important.

 

[Dtail]

This is not surprising.

I know a number of people who thought they would retire to the rural, uncrowded countryside, only to find that medical needs, often urgent ones, made that problematic.

Also, the idea that the kids and grand kids would love to spend a few weekends a month at Grandma and Grandpa's rural home, turned out not to be true. For some reason the children and grand children have lives of their own.

Yup, can't live in a rural area due to less than topnotch medical, at least around these parts, not to mention other reasons.

 

[RobbieB]

I solved that problem by not moving after I retired -

 

[Aerides]

I’m surprised that more people don’t factor this in.

I'm not surprised. We see many would-be-ER's who come here and proclaim they don't have much factored into their finances for medical expenses "I'm in Good Shape!" they declare. Most people want to think they are immortal until they are forced to realize they are not. And most people overestimate their health, much like their driving skills.

DH is 51 and had a scare a couple of months ago (he's totally fine now) and we were glad to get EMT's show up within 1 minute, from the fire station a half mile from our house. They stabilized him in our driveway and had him in the ER 5 minutes later - best area hospital is 2 miles away.

As his not-quite visitor for a couple of days (not quite because you can't go in currently), it was something to also consider - would one of us want to be driving back and forth for a long distance each day to visit if/when the other has to spend some time as an in patient? It's not a big deal today, but tack on a decade or three, and it would start to be difficult.

Still, sure, I'd love to live in the foothills, outside Sedona... but maybe only for a winter, not forever.

 

[Gumby]

People should give some serious thought to where they can live happily long before they retire. The young wife and I deliberately chose to move to Connecticut in 1989, and then made it happen in terms of finding work. The years since then have proven the wisdom of our decision; we love it here and I don't see us ever moving.

I think it would have been a sad waste of our lives to stay in a place that we did not like for 30 years until we could retire. It would be doubly sad if we moved upon retirement only to find we did not like the new place either.

 

[finnski1]

People should give some serious thought to where they can live happily long before they retire. The young wife and I deliberately chose to move to Connecticut in 1989, and then made it happen in terms of finding work. The years since then have proven the wisdom of our decision; we love it here and I don't see us ever moving.

I think it would have been a sad waste of our lives to stay in a place that we did not like for 30 years until we could retire. It would be doubly sad if we moved upon retirement only to find we did not like the new place either.

Completely agree and hope to stay in our present home as long as possible.

 

[Music Lover]

This is not surprising.

I know a number of people who thought they would retire to the rural, uncrowded countryside, only to find that medical needs, often urgent ones, made that problematic.

Also, the idea that the kids and grand kids would love to spend a few weekends a month at Grandma and Grandpa's rural home, turned out not to be true. For some reason the children and grand children have lives of their own.

And it's not just family. I know people who moved a little less than an hour out of the city and almost no one visits them anymore. Friends that used to visit a few times a month now visit a few times a year.

 

[MC Rider]

Something to think about. We are wanting to move out of the big city to a lower cost area. Have one we are interested in, but never spent more than a couple days there at a time, and only been there a few times. It does seem to meet our criteria. Best I can tell so far.


We had thoughts about moving to Arkansas where my daughters family had what she had called their forever home. But they pulled up stakes and went to New Hampshire for new opportunities. I won't be visiting them in winter. Or moving to winter.

 

[Winemaker]

My former across the street neighbor was my boss, years ago. He retired and moved to Arizona with his wife. They grew homesick in AZ, and then their SIL, daughter and family moved in 5 doors down from me. My former boss and his wife moved in across the street from me; it was nirvana, close to grandkids, DD and SIL for 5 years. Then SIL took another job, sold the house and moved on. Former boss and wife moved on; don't know if they followed DD or not, but it sure cost them a lot of money over the 7 year period.

 

[braumeister]

I solved that problem by not moving after I retired -

Same here. There are plenty of other places that all have certain advantages (and disadvantages), but we're very content where we are.

 

[Arizona1]

Our current neighbor in an rv park is following around military kid and grandkids in their motorhome. When we’re not able to live independently we’ll pull up into the circle drive of a minimum care facility in the Moho, get out with a few things, and throw the parking attendant the keys.

 

[mountainsoft]

We have lived here for 30 years and fully intend to stay here the rest of our lives. Obviously, there's always a chance some unknown situation could happen in the future that would force a move, but barring that we're here to stay.

We bought our property in 1989 and moved into our new mobile home in 1991. While that was never our "forever house", the property is our "forever home". We built our new house in 2004 and it has everything we could ever want.

We're roughly 15 minutes to the local grocery store, 20 minutes to the local doctor, and 30-45 minutes to the closest hospital. A city dweller may find these times unacceptable, but we have never known anything different. In fact, we're closer to town now than we've ever been.

The one situation we have questioned in recent years is if we would rebuild if a forest fire came through and burned the trees and house down. If everything we love about our home is gone, is it worth staying? I don't know...

Of course, even if we wanted to move, we wouldn't be able to afford anything similar anywhere in our area.

 

[Markola]

WSJ article: Retirees who sell "forever" homes

My DM is a Coastal GA native, a place where a lot of couples retire from other places. She comments that soon after one spouse dies, the survivor often moves away to be near relatives.

 

[RunningBum]

This is not surprising.

I know a number of people who thought they would retire to the rural, uncrowded countryside, only to find that medical needs, often urgent ones, made that problematic.

That's a great point. RE has helped me with this though. I never figured it would be a "forever home", but I've owned my retirement home in the mountains for 20 years. If/when I start needing easier access for medical, I'll move. I just turned 60, so I'm hoping I still have 10 or 20 more years here. But I'll take it as it goes.

 

[skyking1]

I’m surprised that more people don’t factor this in.

I was having an ongoing discussion with some family members and said that, if we moved, I’d want to be within an hour of a level I trauma center. No one else thought it was important.

We did, and still are not committed to the property we purchased just yet.
FWIW, there is only 1 level I trauma center in the state of Washington, at Harborview. I don't see that level of care as a priority, and they can airlift someone there on that rare occasion that it makes a difference.
The one within a half hour is a level III.
There are two in the entire NW. Check out this map.
https://www.amtrauma.org/page/FindTraumaCenter

 

[Gumby]

Thanks for the map tool. Although I'll admit we gave it no thought when we moved here 32 years ago, I am pleased to see that there are one Level I and two Level II trauma centers within 10 miles of my house. And there is a small branch hospital with an emergency room about 1/4 mile from my house.

 

[skyking1]

yeah still not moving to wherever that is LOL!

 

[MC Rider]

Looking at that map tool, Nevada is a big open space, except Vegas.
Here in L.A. County it says there are 4 level 1 centers.
There is a level 2 center at the hospital that is less than a 10 minute walk from home.
I guess if you need it you are not walking there though.