Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I posted on the Florida forum to try to start a discussion of home ownership of safe, affordable housing (including discussing pros and cons of condo form of ownership, including 55+ condos, and touching on cohousing).
I haven't gotten much response so would like to broaden that discussion beyond Florida and thought this forum might be a good place to connect with people interested in discussing their experiences with or ideas about this.
I agree. Unfortunately, the internet service providers cartel bundle TV and internet services together for a very high price, and then if you drop the TV portion, you are charged nearly the SAME price. What a rip off! I pay $70/mo for internet and very basic cable TV. If I cancel my TV, which I would do in a heartbeat, the cost would drop by less than $5.00/mo. That's it. How insane is that? I'd rather view my limited TV online, but that's what Comcast and others don't want people to do, cut the cable. There needs to be much more competition in the internet service provider area. As long as Comcast and Time Warner are allowed to totally dominate most markets, nothing will change.
There needs to be a low cost internet only option available for everyone. The internet is becoming a necessity. Also, the cost of internet and TV are virtually the same across the country. So, if you live in a low cost area, you pay high prices, which is ludicrous. The internet prices do not reflect the local economies or local COL or wages. I have gone to the Comcast website and typed in various zipcodes around the country and come up with the exact same prices in Manhattan and some small town in the South. Something is very wrong with the picture. Sorry to digress.
My Comcast Internet, cable TV and phone climbed to $172. I had one tier above very basic cable which was only about $10.00 more than basic only. I dropped the TV part and it went down by $64. So I now pay $108 for Internet and phone from Comcast. I am thinking of dropping my phone and Internet service using different providers for each one. Maybe using a cell phone service for all phone service. I hardly use my cell. Right now I pay $20 every 90 days for 200 minutes.
I posted on the Florida forum to try to start a discussion of home ownership of safe, affordable housing (including discussing pros and cons of condo form of ownership, including 55+ condos, and touching on cohousing).
I haven't gotten much response so would like to broaden that discussion beyond Florida and thought this forum might be a good place to connect with people interested in discussing their experiences with or ideas about this.
I've lived in a condo in Chicago for about 38 years and all of your concerns are very real and I am currently experiencing them in my condo. So much so that I am looking to sell all of my units as quickly as possible since the situation is deteriorating very quickly.
It wasn't always this way. The key to a good condo is the management company that is hired to give advice and manage the property. A good management company can usually steer a Board in the right direction. Of course, there is always the possibility that the wrong people get into control and it is disastrous, as happened in my building.
I think that newer condos with less maintenance issues are probably a better bet than older ones. They sort of run themselves. Reserves emergency repairs are always an issue especially if homeowners have a different view about the need for proactive maintenance. Again, a good management company helps.
I do question the whole notion of shared ownership for the reasons that you articulated in your post that you referenced. I do think that the problem is somewhat mitigated if the property is newer. I am not sure what my next home will be like, but I am thinking a two story townhouse in a medium size complex (so as not to be overexposed to any one owner not paying their assessments), with the bedroom on the first floor. I don't think I want a single family home and I am thinking that large condo complexes are unwieldy an subject to all kinds of nefarious practices.
Thanks for the reply, Richrf. I'm sorry to hear of the problems you're experiencing and wish you the best of luck with being able to sell and move on to something more suitable for you.
I guess what I'd like to see built (what I would love to be able to buy myself) would be something like what would look like a small condo complex (small number of units and consisting of small-square-footage one- and two-bedroom attached units) but the form of ownership would be single family home, not condo or co-op. By being small, the units would have lower taxes and utilities, and hopefully this grouping together of homes could facilitate a sense of community.
I know there are high-density urban areas that have attached row houses, or townhouses, with this type of ownership. But these tend to be larger square footage than what I'm thinking of. I think building codes may generally have minimum-size requirements for single family homes that would prevent building these smaller, condo-sized homes as attached single-family homes. Also, while I've enjoyed living in large cities at times, I'd prefer a smaller city or town at this point in my life as a future, hopefully permanent home.
Thanks for the reply, Richrf. I'm sorry to hear of the problems you're experiencing and wish you the best of luck with being able to sell and move on to something more suitable for you.
I guess what I'd like to see built (what I would love to be able to buy myself) would be something like what would look like a small condo complex (small number of units and consisting of small-square-footage one- and two-bedroom attached units) but the form of ownership would be single family home, not condo or co-op. By being small, the units would have lower taxes and utilities, and hopefully this grouping together of homes could facilitate a sense of community.
I know there are high-density urban areas that have attached row houses, or townhouses, with this type of ownership. But these tend to be larger square footage than what I'm thinking of. I think building codes may generally have minimum-size requirements for single family homes that would prevent building these smaller, condo-sized homes as attached single-family homes. Also, while I've enjoyed living in large cities at times, I'd prefer a smaller city or town at this point in my life as a future, hopefully permanent home.
Yes, the closest property type that you are looking for is probably a townhouse with a low fee assessment that is associated with a limited amount of common area (e.g. the roof, the gardens, snow removal, etc.). Normally, in urban areas, these type of developments are targeting young families who want a "single family" feeling but still shared maintenance costs, albeit very limited.
I am not sure if there are any senior communities that may have the type of housing you are looking for. There may be. I haven't looked into that type of living that much. Most of the time the units have much smaller footprints since they are geared toward the retiree but then there usually amenities that everyone shares the cost. In all cases though they do seem to have a condo type of ownership which means you have the same risks and problems associated with any condo complex.
Right, I know that attached single family ownership with no asssociation or common charges does exist (not all townhouses are part of an association), but this may be becoming more rare and in general these are larger homes than I would want.
I had forgotten this until now, but in Florida a few years back I did look at a couple of "half-duplexes" for sale where the square footage was very small and the ownership was single family without any association or fees. (As you drove through the neighborhood, one thing that was striking was the two halves of a roof being obviously different ages/materials because there was no shared maintenance; you took care of your own [half] house.) However, these were older construction; I don't know if current building codes would allow newer ones to be built.
Right, I know that attached single family ownership with no asssociation or common charges does exist (not all townhouses are part of an association), but this may be becoming more rare and in general these are larger homes than I would want.
I had forgotten this until now, but in Florida a few years back I did look at a couple of "half-duplexes" for sale where the square footage was very small and the ownership was single family without any association or fees. (As you drove through the neighborhood, one thing that was striking was the two halves of a roof being obviously different ages/materials because there was no shared maintenance; you took care of your own [half] house.) However, these were older construction; I don't know if current building codes would allow newer ones to be built.
We still look at Florida with some interest. The thing I find frustrating is the high HOA fees with the condos and the high property taxes with the little shacks we have stumbled on. We are here in Sun City and I had previously posted that our taxes for this little remodel were in the $400's and after the completion they are now $715. The tax man cometh...lol. Still, not bad for a 1,850 square foot home and the HOA fee here is a whopping $20 a year. We do have a buy in fee and a recreation fee (optional) but still not bad. But we still love the ecology in Florida and look now and then and wish we could do a vacation condo or shack.
My Comcast Internet, cable TV and phone climbed to $172. I had one tier above very basic cable which was only about $10.00 more than basic only. I dropped the TV part and it went down by $64. So I now pay $108 for Internet and phone from Comcast. I am thinking of dropping my phone and Internet service using different providers for each one. Maybe using a cell phone service for all phone service. I hardly use my cell. Right now I pay $20 every 90 days for 200 minutes.
I wanted to revive this thread, which I love. Many of us are not wealthy in retirement and a "shoe string" budget is appropriate for some of us. Anyway, I wanted to respond to the issue of internet, cell and cable. I did read recently that T-Mobile has a $30/mo plan (no contract, I think) with unlimited minutes and text and a small amount of data, for those of us who only use the cell for talking, not surfing or texting. It seems to be the lowest price for cell phone minutes. I have to check their website to see whether it requires a contract. My ATT contact ends this year and I'm looking to find a pay as you go cell plan for myself, and I don't need any web capabilities. Comcast is just awful in terms of constant price increases. The worst part is that I pay 48 for internet, and 20 for basic cable, but if I drop the cable, then the internet gets a $15 "surcharge" added (total ripoff), so for $5/mo, I get basic cable. I really HATE comcast, but there is no other broadband option where I live.
I wanted to revive this thread, which I love. Many of us are not wealthy in retirement and a "shoe string" budget is appropriate for some of us. Anyway, I wanted to respond to the issue of internet, cell and cable. I did read recently that T-Mobile has a $30/mo plan (no contract, I think) with unlimited minutes and text and a small amount of data, for those of us who only use the cell for talking, not surfing or texting. It seems to be the lowest price for cell phone minutes. I have to check their website to see whether it requires a contract. My ATT contact ends this year and I'm looking to find a pay as you go cell plan for myself, and I don't need any web capabilities. Comcast is just awful in terms of constant price increases. The worst part is that I pay 48 for internet, and 20 for basic cable, but if I drop the cable, then the internet gets a $15 "surcharge" added (total ripoff), so for $5/mo, I get basic cable. I really HATE comcast, but there is no other broadband option where I live.
I pay the extra charge for internet because I do not have cable. However, it works out more than $5 for the cable, with the package savings, because there are taxes on cable, not on the internet--so it is really about $9 for cable when you buy the package.
However, the point is more than saving the $9, it is about the issue is that you do not need basic cable. I hook up an antenna to my new digital TV and I get about 30 channels over the air. That includes HI definition. You do not need cable or satellite for Hi Def as it is broadcast over the air. Of course, you have to have a digital TV. After, I ignored the "religious" and the Spanish Language, I get about 22 good channels with two movie channels, two weather channels, two old TV, all the local broadcast with multiple split signals, as 2.1, 2.2 and two public TV channels with again multiple split signals.
The signals are clear and better than cable. Comcast will not transmit the multiple split signals so you get less channels than that which are broadcast. People who have had cable do not know they exist and they are not advertised in the newspaper TV guides. That is because the TV companies make more money selling the signal to cable and do not want you to know that other stations exist. Also, the hi def is not the same good quality as over the air hi def.
Of course, this does mean that you would have to be able to get a good signal from the over the air transmitter antenna. I live right near the mountain, near Denver, and the signals are good. You may need a more power antenna. Some areas could not get a signal and you would need cable or satellite but do you really need basic cable? Many TV shows are broadcast over the internet, so why do you need basic cable. If you watch some special shows or need all the sports garbage, then it makes sense to get extended cable but basic cable is a waste of money--$9 a month is a good savings.
I had an old TV with an analog tuner and I used the converter box for time. That will bypass the tuner in the TV with the digital converter box tuner but you cannot get Hi Def on an old analog TV. In addition, there was signal loss through the converter box and I only got 25 channels--now I get 30 and hi-def. Also, the old analog CRT TV used much more power and made no sense to replace light bulbs around your house with CFL bulbs to save energy and you have a big hulking CRT sucking power. An old crt 32 inch uses about $275 of power for 5 hours a day for a year. A new digital 40 inch TV uses about $14 for the same use time a year. So, people are fooling themselves in keeping these old TVs and you cannot get hi-def.
My cell phone cost me $10 a year for service. I have had the T-mobile pay as you go phone for years. Once you put $100 in credits in the phone, any additions last for one year of service. The minimum addition is $10 and minutes not used roll over. So, I have over a hundred dollars in credit and many hundreds of minutes to use and it cost me only $10 a year for service. Of course, I do not waste my time yakking and laughing over the phone. Text messages can be made for 10 cents ea. but I do not care about that feature. Calls area about 10 cents a minute--I just want a basic phone for voice service. I have had multiple phones over time, so I replace them when they wear out and I can get a new one for about $8-12 ea. and I just take the little card out of the old and put it in the new. I lost one, once, and I called and I just transferred my service and credit to a new phone. Of course, you have to add the extrapolate the cost of the phone and the initial $100 to your years of service. I have had this service for about 15 years so perhaps my phone service has cost me $17 a year for service, as sometimes I have added $25 a year because of heavy use in family emergencies.
This T-mobile system makes sense even if you have the high price phones, because you can have an extra phone in your car. How many times have you left your house and forgot your phone? Or, maybe, you just want another basic phone at your other home or vacation cabin.
Livecontent
Last edited by livecontent; 10-16-2012 at 09:56 AM..
With the recent complaints about the cost of food, gas, etc. it might be a good time to look through the many good suggestions in this thread and see if anything seems worth trying. Although belt tightening is a PITA, it's also true that most of us can be a little more frugal if we need to. Even if you already do many of the ideas listed in this thread I'll bet for there are a few tips that haven't been tried yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
