ok, inground pool too much $$$ how about above?

[Mrs.JT]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Yes that makes you an elitist and a nosy neighbor. There is absolutely no way for something in your neighbors yard to "obstruct" your view, look up the definition. If you don't want to see what your neighbor is legally entitled to put in their back yard, then you should put up a fence and plant trees to screen the view. I would expect a lawyer to know better.

LOL. I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore, but I got sucked in. That CptRn and the "elitist" thing is something else...

This is merely an assumption, but I don't think Ladylaw was referring to a neighbor's above ground pool creating an obstruction, but rather her own above ground pool should she choose to build one. It sounded as if she was saying that she'd rather not go with the option that would obstruct the view of roses in her yard.

CptnRN, the whole "elitist" thing doesn't belong in this thread, in my opinion. I really think you should let it go.

Preference is preference. We're just talking about pools, after all. Geez.

Further, I think the "elitist" concept is about perception. I try to view everyone equally, and if someone wants to behave or think of themselves as elitists, that's fine with me. They are no more "elite" in my mind than I or anyone else is...regardless of their intellect, wealth, social status, etc. They're still a human being. So I would stop worrying about people being "elitist." It almost appears as if you might have a slight inferiority complex. I'm not saying that you do. I'm just saying it appears that way.

[Mrs.JT]

Oh, and what exactly is an "elitist budget?" Who would say such a thing?Because a person happens to have a slightly bigger bank account than the next person makes their budget "elitist?" And I never knew a budget can be "elitist," anyway.

LOL

But hey, I could be wrong.

[N. Olikee]

Per an msn.com article:

5 home improvements for summer: Are they worth it?

Pool
Worth doing? Depends

At $25,000 to $50,000 or more, an in-ground pool requires a gut check before homeowners even dip a toe in the water. Sure, the National Association of Realtors' National Center for Real Estate Research says that an in-ground pool can add about 8% to a home's resale price, but that value swings dramatically, from 6% in the Midwest to 11% in the toasty Sun Belt.

It also doesn't cover the more than $2,000 it will cost in maintenance and the hundreds of dollars it will set owners back to keep heated pools warm. Don't forget that many states require homeowners to fence in or cover their pools, which adds to the cost and insurance liability. In-ground pools don't exactly age well, either; most require hundreds of dollars in filter and pump repairs within less than a decade, and resurfacing costs running upward of $10,000 shortly after that first decade.

If you think an above-ground pool is the cheapest answer, it is — upfront. But, according to the Center for Real Estate Research, an above-ground pool not only adds no value to a house, but it also can actually subtract 1.9% of a house's value if the buyer decides the eyesore needs to come down. Basically, if the pool's not there for your personal enjoyment — your very costly personal enjoyment — it shouldn't be there at all.

[XLadylawX]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Yes that makes you an elitist and a nosy neighbor. There is absolutely no way for something in your neighbors yard to "obstruct" your view, look up the definition. If you don't want to see what your neighbor is legally entitled to put in their back yard, then you should put up a fence and plant trees to screen the view. I would expect a lawyer to know better.

I was referring to such a pool in my own backyard. I really don't care what people do in their own backyards. I do not want one in my own backyard and I don't think being an elitist has anything to do with it.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by XLadylawX

I was referring to such a pool in my own backyard. I really don't care what people do in their own backyards. I do not want one in my own backyard and I don't think being an elitist has anything to do with it.

In hindsight I realize that I misinterpreted your post, and for that I apologize, I thought you were referring to an above ground pool in your neighbors yard. You are certainly entitled to make your own priorities as to what is important to you in your yard, just as the lady who is considering an above ground pool should in hers.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Mrs.JT

LOL. I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore, but I got sucked in. That CptRn and the "elitist" thing is something else...

This is merely an assumption, but I don't think Ladylaw was referring to a neighbor's above ground pool creating an obstruction, but rather her own above ground pool should she choose to build one. It sounded as if she was saying that she'd rather not go with the option that would obstruct the view of roses in her yard.

CptnRN, the whole "elitist" thing doesn't belong in this thread, in my opinion. I really think you should let it go.

Preference is preference. We're just talking about pools, after all. Geez.

Further, I think the "elitist" concept is about perception. I try to view everyone equally, and if someone wants to behave or think of themselves as elitists, that's fine with me. They are no more "elite" in my mind than I or anyone else is...regardless of their intellect, wealth, social status, etc. They're still a human being. So I would stop worrying about people being "elitist." It almost appears as if you might have a slight inferiority complex. I'm not saying that you do. I'm just saying it appears that way.

I agree that the "elitist" thing doesn't belong in this thread, but here it is.

Originally Posted by IDASpaceman

Don't do it! Above ground pools are for Hillbillies and mobile home parks...get a part-time job, save up...and do everyone in your neighborhood a favor by spending the cash on an inground.

No question about it, I despise snobs.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by N. Olikee

Per an msn.com article:

5 home improvements for summer: Are they worth it?

Pool
Worth doing? Depends

At $25,000 to $50,000 or more, an in-ground pool requires a gut check before homeowners even dip a toe in the water. Sure, the National Association of Realtors' National Center for Real Estate Research says that an in-ground pool can add about 8% to a home's resale price, but that value swings dramatically, from 6% in the Midwest to 11% in the toasty Sun Belt.

It also doesn't cover the more than $2,000 it will cost in maintenance and the hundreds of dollars it will set owners back to keep heated pools warm. Don't forget that many states require homeowners to fence in or cover their pools, which adds to the cost and insurance liability. In-ground pools don't exactly age well, either; most require hundreds of dollars in filter and pump repairs within less than a decade, and resurfacing costs running upward of $10,000 shortly after that first decade.

If you think an above-ground pool is the cheapest answer, it is — upfront. But, according to the Center for Real Estate Research, an above-ground pool not only adds no value to a house, but it also can actually subtract 1.9% of a house's value if the buyer decides the eyesore needs to come down. Basically, if the pool's not there for your personal enjoyment — your very costly personal enjoyment — it shouldn't be there at all.

One, this article is clearly biased, as they assume an above ground pool is an eyesore, which doesn't have to be the case. Also it says an above ground pool can subtract value, so it doesn't always and doesn't have to if done properly.

So how does this compare?

1) The owner of a $200,000 house puts in a $50,000 below ground pool. The house appreciates in value 9% to $218,000. So they have lost $38,000.

2) The owner of a $200,000 house puts in a $5,000 above ground pool. The house looses value of 1.9% so it is now worth $196,200. So they have lost $8,800.

Economically the second home owner still comes out ahead by almost $30,000, without even counting the higher operating and maintenance costs of the above ground pool.

[N. Olikee]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

One, this article is clearly biased, as they assume an above ground pool is an eyesore, which doesn't have to be the case. Also it says an above ground pool can subtract value, so it doesn't always and doesn't have to if done properly.

So how does this compare?

1) The owner of a $200,000 house puts in a $50,000 below ground pool. The house appreciates in value 9% to $218,000. So they have lost $38,000.

2) The owner of a $200,000 house puts in a $5,000 above ground pool. The house looses value of 1.9% so it is now worth $196,200. So they have lost $8,800.

Economically the second home owner still comes out ahead by almost $30,000, without even counting the higher operating and maintenance costs of the above ground pool.

Although I have an inground pool which came with the house, I don't really have an opinion on this. Just saw the article and thought I'd pass it along. Cpt, I think your pool looks quite nice, actually.

[cBach]

That's why I have a community pool! I do have to pay the HOA fee for the maintenance, but that fee would amount to less than I would pay if I had my own pool.

I love pools, but they are a money pit, just like boats, golfing, skiing, well anything that's fun really.

[N. Olikee]

Originally Posted by cBach

That's why I have a community pool! I do have to pay the HOA fee for the maintenance, but that fee would amount to less than I would pay if I had my own pool.

I love pools, but they are a money pit, just like boats, golfing, skiing, well anything that's fun really.

That's funny!.....and so true, as we are finding out being new pool owners. We've had to repair two leaks, so far, among other things. Not cheap!