There is a truism in real estate valuation which essentially
translates to “highest and best use” of any given property. Highest and best use
of a property factors in zoning laws and bringing a property to its maximum
value by careful consideration of how it should be used and what should be
built upon it. You wouldn’t take a 50-acre parcel of cow pasture and maintain
it that way in the middle of New York City for instance.
Our new property is so singular; so beautiful, that
truthfully it should sport at least a million-dollar home or even a multi-million-dollar
compound to really maximize its value. So, what happens if we leave it as our
private campground? We’re in consideration of this….
We’ve come to the conclusion rather quickly, that short of
selling our Waupaca place we won’t have enough cash to really build another full-blown
residence here. (We like being debt free and intend to remain that way!). Based
upon what we built in Waupaca in 2014-15 for under $150,000 we thought we
could. Ha, more like double that in today’s dollars. It would be much easier if
we knew for sure we wanted to live here year-round but that is still an
unanswered question. It’s particularly hard for Marc to consider giving up what
he’s built in our Waupaca home basement: his man cave, huge office space, and
wood working workshop. I understand—to think of having to transport all that heavy
stuff back up the stairs and move it 145 miles and set it up in another
location is a daunting thought.
So right now, our best thoughts are for leaving this as a
second location we use for maybe six months of the year. We could continue
(after building the outbuildings) to just move the RV out of its storage every
spring and move back in for the summer and fall. However, this RV (after being
spoiled by our 40-foot Travel Supreme) leaves a lot to be desired in terms of long-term
living. It’s fine for camping but not something I really want to live in every
summer on a permanent basis.
A small cabin is still under consideration but we’ve
also moved on to include a couple of other options. I asked Marc one day “would
you consider another park model?” Many of you long time readers may recall we
bought one in WI and had it shipped to the Oregon coast back in 2008, then
later shipped it to our lot in Yuma. I really enjoyed living in it and other
than the small bedroom which only had room for a queen bed, found it to be
comfortable in terms of space.
More
recent park models have far advanced and many now provide bedroom dimensions
which allow for a King size bed. Some are even up to 15 foot wide and more
squarish in configuration, which make them seem less like a trailer. With these
advances however, has also come a tremendous increase in cost, with most pushing
the $100,000 and more range. But what isn’t getting expensive, right?
It also seems strange to me that the Midwest and east coast
manufacturers seem to be well behind the times in what they offer as opposed to
the West coast, which feature more modern advances like drywall, metal roofs,
attached front porches and interesting rooflines. Those that are most appealing
to me would require cross-country shipping, which surely would add at least ten
grand to the price.
There are several advantages to a park model over a stick
built cabin or larger manufactured home for us: namely, the fact that they’re
classified as an RV so don’t need any sort of permit to place and they won’t
impact or raise our property taxes. Given that WI is a fairly high property tax
state, this is huge. It could also always be sold off later on if someone
desired building upon this property. Building a small cabin here would be a
finality; it would always just be a small cabin residence unless someone added
onto it since zoning is only for single family residence.
Another avenue of thought is for us to get busy demolishing
the Travel Supreme body and use the frame and axles as a foundation upon which
to build a tiny home on wheels totally of our design and desires. Self-building
would not require any permits or inspections that we’re aware of and a onetime
move permit from DMV would allow us to bring it here with the Freightliner. We
would not plan on it moving again.
Marc said the frame could be extended from
its current 8.5 feet to 10, thus giving us a likely 400+ sf on the main floor
if we did a couple cantilever bumpouts. Everything would be cathedral ceilings
and main floor—we’re not interested in having any loft spaces. This actually
holds some appeal since they’ve always been a fascination to me and one could
get really creative on a dime, so to speak, and the overall costs would likely
be significantly less than purchasing something. There’s never anything wrong
with having money “left over” is there? Here again, tiny home advances over
those that initially were built 20 years ago are fabulous! Just look at some of
these:
(This last photo leaves me positively drooling! Those windows; our lake view!)
A park model makes it much easier on Marc; a tiny home would
entail likely another summer of construction for him. It’s a lot to think about
and right now I’m torn 50-50 if we elect to consider either of these possibilities. Which would you do?