This is about a friend of mine. He has around 300 acres in the mountains, which has all kinds of wild game, with a newly built cabin sitting next to a pond, drives 2.5 hours to get there. Now my friend is looking to sell the 300 acre property and buy one that costs twice as much, except it has no cabin, no electricity, less than half the acres, less game, and is only about an hour away.

His main argument is the 2.5 hour drive versus the closer 1 hour drive without cabin and half the acres. His second argument is that his wife doesn't want to go to the cabin because the shower doesn't work and it's a long drive for the little ones. Now, remember the new property doesn't even have a cabin to even sleep in- let alone a shower, half the acres, costs twice as much but is about an hour and half closer.

The larger property has deer, coyote, bears, bobcats, pheasents, turkey, and an elk herd nearby plus it buts up against no man's land for thousands upon thousands of acres. The smaller yet closer property without cabin that costs twice as much has probably deer, coyote, and turkey, buts up against hundreds of acres in a farming area. Now logically he can go to the closer cabin twice as often since it isn't a haul to get there but he gets half the acres without a roof over his head.



So which would you choose, the 2.5 hour drive to a newly built cabin, with 300 acres in the mountains surrounded by nothing OR the 1 hour drive to a property without a cabin and 130 acres in a farming community?






   

Quoted: most definitely the 2.5 hour drive with 300 acres

Me too.  It would be an escape for the weekend or a small vacation so a 2.5 hr drive would be nothing.

Quoted: most definitely the 2.5 hour drive with 300 acres

The second property has a lot of potential with a lot of expense and hard work. The first property just needs some TLC and a bit more dedication but it is much larger and in a much more remote area plus it's paid for.

Both have pluses and minuses but I am trying to help my friend perhaps see it one way or another.

Huh, I have 40 acres 7 hours away in the mountains and I am going to retire there.  He will regret doing what he is thinking of doing.  Tell him to pay to get the shower fixed and ask the wife if this cloth smells like ether.  She won't notice the drive then.

Quoted: His second argument is that his wife doesn't want to go to the cabin because the shower doesn't work and it's a long drive for the little ones.

Sounds great to me!

Quoted: Of those, definitely the 300-acre one. 2.5 hours isn't a bad drive at all, we do that all the time in one direction or another, and he can always repair the shower.

The cabin is new, the shower works, but just needs to have a different set up to get water pressure.


The other property doesn't even have a cabin, let a lone a shower.

Quoted: most definitely the 2.5 hour drive with 300 acres

me too

I will be honest with you guys- any argument one way or another might help in this situation.

2.5 hours?  Man, I can do that in my sleep.

Tell your friend that he's a fool to sell the paid-for, twice as big property for a half-as-big (but closer) tract that he'll then have to build on.

Quoted: 2.5 hours?  Man, I can do that in my sleep. Tell your friend that he's a fool to sell the paid-for, twice as big property for a half-as-big (but closer) tract that he'll then have to build on.

Oh yah, the bigger property buts up against several other large tracts of land which but up against a National Forest, hence Elk Herd in area and has actual mountains surrounding it.


The smaller property buts up against farmland, has some nice rolling hills and a small creek but again- costs twice as much and has no cabin.


I'll post him a link to this thread once we get a few real voiced opinions on the matter.

My only argument for the larger property is that it is paid for.
Otherwise, my thought is that there is a reason that the smaller property costs more.  What could that be?  And there is still hunting on the smaller property although no elk.  I always wanted to go on an elk hunt.

Quoted: My only argument for the larger property is that it is paid for. Otherwise, my thought is that there is a reason that the smaller property costs more.  What could that be?  And there is still hunting on the smaller property although no elk.  I always wanted to go on an elk hunt.

The smaller property costs more because it is closer to a major city and is in farm country but has a lot of potential. However it doesn't have much in terms of wild game other than deer and perhaps turkey but that is the main hunting anyway. The original intent was a hunting cabin that he could bring his family to. The larger property has the cabin but just needs a few minor changes to get it turned into a perfect weekend get away for his family. Now he thinks that someday he'll retire to the closer property once a house is built onto it. However he has a nice house already plus the large property with cabin 2.5 hours away.

The main issue is that to maintain the larger property he has to drive a long distance hauling grass cutting equipment, however he would have to do the same with the other property. Either way he has to maintain a property but it comes down to how far of a drive and with the second property- there isn't a cabin to begin with.