help please in selecting the right location for a holiday home

[Katiana]

You're welcome. This "growth" issue is always a two-sided business. The newcomers, for the most part, contribute a lot to the local economy, do volunteer work, and others.

I agree with checking out Northern New Mexico for shamu. It is beautiful, and may be less expensive.

[Plain Jane 3953]

Ocean2026 said:
"Plain Jane you are another example of the have-nots being jealous of those who have prospered.

What is wrong with an empty house? When they pay taxes they are paying for the services that YOU use- in other words they are contributing more than they take. On the other hand you get to pay less because they are funding you.

How do empty houses hurt schools? Once again they pay the school taxes yet don't fill up the schools with their kids. They pay for YOUR kids.

Take a class in basic economics."

So you ask, "what is wrong with an empty house?"
Think about what it would be like for the local community if a substantial number of the homes were empty 80% of the time. Yes, the home owners might well pay county taxes, but they are not supporting the local shops. Their children are not involved in the schools. They are not eating in the local restaurants, etc etc. Plain and simple the people owning holiday homes are not part of the community.

You ask, "How do empty houses hurt schools? Once again they pay the school taxes yet don’t fill up the schools with their kids. They pay for YOUR kids".
Empty houses mean less children going to the local schools and becoming part of the community. My children are grown. I, with pleasure, pay taxes to support the elementary school for the families in our community.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by Plain Jane 3953

Ocean2026 said:

You ask, "How do empty houses hurt schools? Once again they pay the school taxes yet don’t fill up the schools with their kids. They pay for YOUR kids".
Empty houses mean less children going to the local schools and becoming part of the community. My children are grown. I, with pleasure, pay taxes to support the elementary school for the families in our community.

I understand you were responding to the person who said "they pay for YOUR kids", but. . . You say you don't have any kids in school either. Neither do I anymore. The fact is most homeowners in any community don't have kids in the schools. (That is one reason it's so hard to get people to vote to pay taxes to support the schools, but that's a topic for another thread.) So in a sense you and I are not helping to keep the schools filled, either. I don't understand the point. shamu didn't say he didn't want to pay taxes. In fact, being from the UK (I believe), he is probably more willing than some to pay taxes for services he's not getting. All he wants to do is buy a retirement home, which he seems to plan to occupy several months of the year, all that while contributing to the local economy.

[ocean2026]

Plain Jane - You're assuming that an vacation house deprives the community of someone who wants to live there, go to school or buy from local stores. That assumption means you believe that a FULL TIME resident would have no place to live because a vacation homeowner is taking their place, thus the full-time person can't live in your town.

Unless building has been restricted to a set number of homes that of course, is NOT true. A vacation homeowner does not take away from those who want to live there full-time. The full time people should be supporting the schools and local business. The Vacation Homeowner is just a bonus. They pay taxes and don't use the services.

in other words, you aren't trading a vacation homeowner for a full-time resident, and that's where your logic is faulty.

In addition to that as you don't use any numbers to support your theory, my guess is your dislike of the vacation people has far more to do with the "haves vs the have not's " than any real economic argument.

[Sockeye]

Originally Posted by rybert

Shamu,

"Maybe Southern Colorado or Northern New Mexico would fit better in your price range. Same mountain range... but possibly much less expensive.

"

Not Taos or Santa Fe, though. They've become very expensive places to live. Taos perhaps a bit less so, but RE there has risen at least 12% annually for the past several years. You may want to consider Questa and north of there into the SLV. Be careful, as "improvements" can be hard to come by and are costly. The high sage desert is beautiful, to say the least, but it's weather can be merciless.

"Unless building has been restricted to a set number of homes that of course, is NOT true. A vacation homeowner does not take away from those who want to live there full-time. The full time people should be supporting the schools and local business. The Vacation Homeowner is just a bonus. They pay taxes and don't use the services."

I've had some great wapiti hunting experiences on some of those unposted properties of those 7000 sq. ft. 2nd homes. Thats a real bonus for me. Hope the gut pile didn't offend anyone.

[rybert]

Agreed. Santa Fe and Taos are way too expensive.

[katzenfreund]

I understand this is controversial topic, but please do discuss the topic, not other posters and please, no personal attacks or I will have to delete more posts.

Thank you!