Quote:
Originally Posted by Rukdafaidas
Did you factor crime rates in your research?
|
There are two things that I pondered putting into the model and didn't. Maybe I'll build them in at some point.
Crime rates - It obviously seems like an important thing, but I'm not sure how relevant it is given the geography of how they're reported. For example, I live in an area that statistically has a relatively high crime rate. But my neighborhood is mostly home owners and is very low crime. The numbers get driven up because there's a commercial street that happens to be in my zip code where there's a lot of low-income housing and criminal-on-criminal crime. Likewise, I think the city of Denver shows up above-average in crime relative to other Colorado cities, but it's mostly because of criminal-on-criminal crime that's happening in a few specific neighborhoods that I never visit.
So while it seems counterintuitive, I don't know if I really care about crime rates that much. Since I'm not a criminal and I'll likely live in a decent neighborhood, I don't think crime impacts me measurably. (I do keep a lookout for the bike that was stolen from my garage 15 years ago, though. I'll find it someday.)
That said, I saw something during my search about how Albuquerque has a high crime rate for things like theft. It gives me pause. But then again I know people who lived there for a decade or more and never had any issues, so I think even petty crime is concentrated in areas where I wouldn't necessarily live. Thoughts?
Growth rates/home appreciation - This is something I'm strongly considering adding. In some places housing is more affordable because the community is in decline or because there's no appreciation in housing values. In the big picture, I'd prefer to live in a place that's growing and has house price appreciation, because home equity will be my last line of financial defense when I'm 95 years old and running out of cash. It's been great to be in Denver for the past 25 years where I've gotten this, and if I retire at 65 and move there'll be another 25 years of home appreciation to consider. I think it would be a long-term financial mistake to move to a place where I don't get that.
That also brings up other things like water - does Las Vegas or Phoenix or southern California have enough water to handle growth and sustainability? If not, that could cause a major reversal of fortunes in the future. So my thinking is that I'll narrow the list down and then do a long-term risk/reward assessment of the finalists that takes into account location-unique issues.