Both paths set out with the same care: selling at $325,000 as planned, or keeping the house and shop and letting them. Every figure is sourced, the estimates are marked as estimates, and where one side is stronger the paper says so.
Built from our own bank records, the signed listing terms, and our Austin condo worksheet as refreshed on 31 August. Ages assumed: 80 and 81.
What this is. A single place with both options costed the same way, so the decision can be made on what things actually cost rather than on who argued last. It does not recommend an answer. The case for selling is set out immediately below; the case for keeping runs through sections 2 to 8; section 12 weighs what money cannot, and section 13 lists what would settle it.
One idea has been dropped and is not in here: listing and letting at the same time. No agent will spend money marketing a house while the owners are undecided, and a half-committed listing is worse than either choice made properly. It is one or the other.
Also worth saying plainly: the house has to be emptied either way. The clearing work already done counts just as much toward letting it as toward selling it.
The two numbers, plainly: selling at $325,000 and putting the money in savings gives us about $1,356 a month. Letting both buildings would give about $2,304 a month, but with tenants, a manager, and a house we still have to look after from 500 miles away. Whether that difference is worth the bother is a fair question, and not one arithmetic can settle.
This is a paper about one house, but one house is not the problem. It is worth seeing the household first, because it changes how much weight this decision can carry.
| Per month | |
|---|---|
| Income — rents, the note, two Social Security cheques | $14,820 |
| Everything going out | $15,467 |
| Road, water and ground lease paid to the neighbour $600 road + $600 water + $1,200 ground lease = $2,400 a year. Paid by cheque, so it never shows in the bank exports and every figure above understates us by it. Confirmed 31 Aug 2026: $2,400 is the true figure. Earlier records carried it as $2,500, which was simply imprecise — there is no missing item. It was $1,200 before the increase described below. |
−$200 |
| Where we actually are | −$847 |
| Cash on hand | $7,366 |
Two things stand out. We are running slightly behind each month — not alarmingly, but without a cushion. And $7,366 against $15,467 of monthly outgoings is about a fortnight of runway. That thinness is the reason any of this matters.
And there is a date on the calendar. Cindy's note pays $3,969.50 a month — 26.8% of everything that comes in — and it stops in April 2028. On the present course, the month after it ends we would be running at about −$4,825 a month. That is the problem this household actually has. Echo Point is one answer to it, not the whole of it.
Our own model, step by step. Each line assumes the one above it:
| Step | Run rate |
|---|---|
| Today including Cindy's ground lease and $8,000 a year of property tax | −$1,522 |
| After the cutting plan 2,338 a month, tiers 1 to 3. No sale required | $816 |
| Renting Echo Pt — house 9 months, shop year round house at 1,900 for 9 months, shop at 600 year round, net of management and costs | $2,343 |
| Once the three loans finish amortising HMF, Sheffield and GreenSky end on their own schedule | $5,502 |
| After Cindy's note ends, 1 April 2028 the steady state you live in from then on | $1,533 |
Read the last line. Doing nothing puts us at −$4,825 a month when the note ends. Working the whole ladder — the cuts, letting Echo Point, and the three loans finishing on their own schedule — puts us at $1,533 a month instead. That is a swing of about $6,358 a month, and letting Echo Point is one rung of it, not the ladder.
Which is the fair way to hold this decision. Letting the house is worth roughly $948 a month more than selling it. That alone more than covers today's $647 shortfall — but it is only about a fifth of the $4,825 hole that opens in April 2028. The cuts matter more than this decision does ($2,278 a month, requiring no sale of anything), and so does $1,912 a month of rent we are billing but not collecting because units sit part-empty. Whatever we decide about Arkansas, those two want doing either way.
Before any of the detail, the finding that does the most work in this paper — because it is the one most easily missed.
If we sell and live on the interest, the money never grows. We would be spending the $1,034 a month that $299,000 produces, so five years from now it is still $299,000, to the penny.
The house does not behave that way. At a modest 3% it would be worth about $376,764 in five years, and the letting income over those same five years comes to roughly $138,240. That is a combined position near $515,004 against $299,000 — a difference of about $216,004.
The honest qualification: that gap is only real if the house actually lets, if it actually appreciates, and if we are willing to be landlords for five years at eighty and eighty-one. Section 8 shows the same table at 2% and 4% so the sensitivity is visible, and sections 3 and 12 set out everything that could stop it happening. But the shape of it — an asset that grows against cash that does not — does not change.
Three concerns have been put on the table about letting. They come first because they are the substantive ones, and two of them turn out to be well founded.
You were right, and I have dropped that idea. I had suggested listing and letting at the same time. No agent will spend money marketing a house while the owners are still deciding, and a half-committed listing is worse than either choice made properly. This paper treats it as one or the other — never both.
This was the sharpest of the three, so I tested it rather than assumed. Section 4 runs the numbers with the shop letting at $800, at $400, and never letting at all — and it costs the property tax, landlord insurance, a 12% allowance for repairs and empty months, and a manager taking 10%, because neither of us is going to be fixing taps in Arkansas. The expenses do take a real bite. They do not eat all of it.
Honestly: nothing stops it entirely. What reduces it is a proper manager screening tenants, a deposit, and a landlord insurance policy — all three are already costed into the figures rather than being wished away. But it is a real risk, it is your risk as much as mine, and if it is the thing that decides you, that is a legitimate reason and not one I will argue you out of.
The rest of this paper tests the letting numbers hard, because they are the ones in doubt. That can make selling look like the default rather than a choice with real merit. It has real merit, and here it is without hedging.
The strongest single argument for selling is that the letting case depends on things we do not yet have: a manager we trust, a tenant, and a shop that lets. The selling case depends on nothing we do not already have. That asymmetry is real, and no table in this paper removes it.
The listing is $325,000 with 5% to the realtors. Adding title, survey and transfer costs brings the all-in to about 8%.
| Amount | |
|---|---|
| List price | $325,000 |
| less selling costs at 8% (5% commission + ~3% closing) | −$26,000 |
| Net proceeds | $299,000 |
| Interest at 4.15% | $1,034/mo |
| Arkansas utilities we stop paying | $322/mo |
| Sell and park — monthly | $1,356 |
| Option | Net per month | What it leaves us holding |
|---|---|---|
| Let the house and the shop | $2,304 | The property, worth $325,000, plus the income |
| Let the house only | $1,680 | The property, shop kept for our own use |
| Sell and park the money | $1,356 | $299,000 in insured savings. No property. |
| Run it as an Airbnb | $561 | The property, and a great deal of work |
The Airbnb figure is low because the house is a block off the water: $258 a night at 36.5% occupancy, against $1,973 a month of short-let costs. Waterfront commands $362. Ours is not waterfront.
Two of these numbers are estimates rather than facts, and the paper would be dishonest without saying so:
The proper answer to all three is the same: a local property manager should walk both buildings and give us real figures — what they would let for, how long they would sit, and whether they are better let together or apart. That should happen before any of this is acted on.
This is the test that matters. The shop supplies $624 of the $2,304. Here is what happens if it lets for less — or never lets at all:
| Scenario | Gross rent | Net to us | vs selling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shop lets at $800 | $2,900 | $2,304 | +$948 |
| Shop lets at $400 | $2,500 | $1,992 | +$636 |
| Shop never lets | $2,100 | $1,680 | +$324 |
This is the strongest thing in the paper. Even in the worst case — the shop never lets, we get nothing for it, the house alone carries the whole thing — letting still beats selling by about $324 a month. The case does not depend on the number she doubts.
Put differently: the combined rent would have to fall below about $1,685 a month before selling became the better outcome. We are being quoted $2,900. That is a wide margin, and it got wider when the list price came down.
Every two-bed, two-bath on our worksheet, scored on the things that actually matter: what it costs to buy, what it costs to hold every month, how far it is from Gregory Gym, and whether the building would ever let us rent it out. All bought outright — no mortgage — so the monthly figure is dues, tax and insurance only.
We have lived in two of these — Greenwood and Cambridge — and both were ideal. That is worth more than every column in the table below. Having lived somewhere means knowing the lifts, the management, the noise, the neighbours and how the dues have actually behaved over time — none of which a listing will tell you and all of which decide whether a building is pleasant to grow older in. Neither needs a trial walk. We already know the answer.
A note on the distance column. Three of these have now been Times are scaled from the one measured figure we have — Greenwood at 14 minutes on foot — and cycling is included because we are content to ride. On a bicycle almost everything on this list is inside ten minutes, which makes distance a much weaker filter than it first appeared. Walking through campus is not a problem either. What ruled buildings out was distance on foot, not the route.
Treat the mileage column with suspicion. These are straight-line distances between coordinates, and around campus that is close to meaningless — you cross Guadalupe and then work through buildings rather than walking in a straight line. The only measured figure we have is Greenwood at 14 minutes on foot, against 0.51 miles straight-line: a walking penalty of about 1.4×. Apply at least that to everything else here, and more where the route cuts across campus rather than along it. Paul's own read of the ground beats this column.
| Unit | Price | Sq ft | $/sqft | Dues | Tax | Carry /mo | To Gregory | Rentable? | Who to call |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1910 Robbins Pl #105 | $299,000 | 1,005 | $298 | $295 | $473 | $898 | 11 min 3 by bike | Unverified | Jeff Tucker (Compass) |
| Pointe Condos #28 | $280,000 | 1,003 | $279 | $415 | $443 | $988 | 22 min 7 by bike | Units let there now | listed via Redfin |
| Orange Tree #12 | $330,000 | 1,081 | $305 | $342 | $522 | $994 | 18 min 5 by bike | Unverified | Compass RE Texas |
| Cascade #318 | $485,000 | 1,010 | $480 | $158 | $768 | $1,056 | 18 min 6 by bike | Unverified | Coldwell / MLS |
| Orange Tree #70 | $375,000 | 1,057 | $355 | $342 | $594 | $1,066 | 18 min 5 by bike | Unverified | Compass RE Texas |
| Greenwood Towers #207 | $260,000 | 880 | $295 | $768 | $412 | $1,310 | 14 min 4 by bike | Yes, clearly permitted | Chloe Cinfio (Compass) 309-253-6451 chloe.cinfio@compass.com |
| Cambridge Tower #4K | $474,900 | 1,169 | $406 | $1,500 | $752 | $2,382 | 14 min 4 by bike | Capped — only some units | MLS |
1910 Robbins Pl #105 — Dues confirmed $295. Built 1984 - newest here. Two parking spaces, washer-dryer in unit. Paul viewed it and did not care for it. · Pointe Condos #28 — Cheapest carry of anything priced. Hancock. A long walk, but a short cycle. · Orange Tree #12 — Largest floorplan found and low dues. · Cascade #318 — Lowest dues anywhere at $158 - dear to buy, cheap to hold. · Orange Tree #70 — Cut $44,000 since July. · Greenwood Towers #207 — The 14-minute walk is measured, not estimated - everything else here is scaled from it. Dues cover gas, water, sewer, trash and electricity. No pool. · Cambridge Tower #4K — Heated pool and spa - the only pool among these. Rental-capped, dearest carry.
Reading the table. Two are worth serious attention and the rest are context. Pointe #28 is the cheapest to hold at $988 a month. Greenwood #207 is the cheapest to buy and much the closest of the two. Everything above $400,000 — Cambridge especially, at $2,382 a month and rental-capped — is on the list only to show what we are not doing.
We have lived in both, and both were ideal. That removes most of what this section was trying to work out from the outside.
| Greenwood #207 | Cambridge #4K | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $260,000 | $474,900 |
| Size | 880 sq ft | 1,169 sq ft |
| Monthly dues | $768 | $1,500 |
| Carry per month | $1,310 | $2,382 |
| Letting | Clearly permitted | Capped — only some units |
| Pool | None | Heated pool and spa |
| Left from the proceeds | $39,000 | −$175,900 |
Greenwood #207 is the answer, unless the pool decides it. Same corner, same walk, a building we know — and it is $214,900 cheaper to buy and $1,072 a month cheaper to hold. It leaves $39,000 over from the sale proceeds where Cambridge would need $175,900 we do not have. And it can be let out, which Cambridge may not allow when we want it. Cambridge's advantages are 289 more square feet and a heated pool — and having just costed a swim spa at $2,500 to move, it is worth noticing that the pool is the expensive way to buy a swim.
Whatever is chosen, the dues are the risk, not the price. Greenwood is 59 years old and our own study flags that no assessment history or reserve-study status is public — the reserve fund being "the classic source of surprise five-figure assessments." Before buying anywhere: demand the resale certificate, the current reserve study, and the last 24 months of board minutes. Dues also vary sharply inside one building — a comparable Greenwood two-bed carries $977 against #207's $768.
An honest note on affordability. This paper once argued buying was out of reach. At these prices it is not: $299,000 of proceeds buys most of this list outright with money left over. The case against buying is not that we cannot — it is that a condominium produces no income and consumes the capital, while the house does neither.
This is the question a price comparison misses, and at our ages it may matter more than the price does. If we buy somewhere and later cannot live there — we go back to Hot Springs, one of us needs care, we simply change our minds — a condominium we are allowed to let is an asset that earns. One we are not allowed to let can only be sold, at whatever the market offers on the day we need out.
Cambridge is the cautionary case, and we know it first-hand. Paul remembers from living there that Cambridge did not permit rentals. Public listings now suggest otherwise, which probably means a percentage cap rather than an outright ban — and a cap behaves exactly like a ban once it is full. Never take a building's rental policy from a listing site. It comes from the HOA resale certificate, in writing, before signing anything.
| Building | Rentability | What we actually know |
|---|---|---|
| Greenwood Towers | Leasing clearly permitted | 10 of its 128 units are listed for rent today, and the building has a documented mix of owner-occupiers, individual landlords and management companies. The most rentable of the three. |
| Pointe Condos | Active rental market in the building | 2/2 units here let for $1,500–$1,985/mo, so leasing plainly happens. Cap or minimum-term rules unverified. |
| Cambridge Tower | ⚠️ CAPPED — only some units may be let | Confirmed by Paul, who lived there: Cambridge permits only a limited number of rentals. That is why listings exist while the building still reads as "no rentals" to an owner who asks at the wrong moment. A cap behaves exactly like a ban once it is full — you would be buying with no guarantee of ever being allowed to let. |
Two-bed units at the Pointe let for $1,500–$1,985 a month. Against a carry of $1,310, and allowing the same 22% for management, repairs and vacancy that we apply to Echo Point:
| If let at | Gross | Less 22% | Less carry | Net to us |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $1,500/mo | $1,500 | −$330 | −$1,310 | +−$140 |
| $1,985/mo | $1,985 | −$437 | −$1,310 | +$239 |
So a let condominium roughly washes its own face — it covers its dues, tax and insurance and returns a little on top, while we still own it. That is a genuine point in favour of buying, and this paper should say so plainly rather than pretend buying has no upside.
But notice what it does not do. Even let out at the top of the range, a bought condominium returns about $239 a month against Echo Point's $2,304 — and getting there costs $260,000 of capital we currently do not have to spend. Echo Point earns more, and we already own it. The condominium's rentability is a safety net, not a reason to buy one.
| Choice | Per month | What we hold |
|---|---|---|
| Keep and let both buildings | +$2,304 | $325,000 property + income |
| Sell and park the proceeds | +$1,356 | $299,000 cash |
| Sell and buy Greenwood Towers #207 | −$1,310 | A condominium, $39,000 left over |
The distance between the top and bottom lines is $3,614 a month — $43,364 a year, or $216,820 over five years.
If we sell and live on the interest, the capital does not grow — we spend the $1,034 a month it makes, so $299,000 stays $299,000. The house appreciates whether we watch it or not.
Appreciation rates are assumptions, shown at three levels so the sensitivity is visible. Nobody knows what the Hot Springs market will do. The fifteen-year line is included deliberately: on our own family history — a father who reached ninety-five, great-grandparents into their late nineties and past a hundred — that is a period we would expect to live in, not a projection past it.
| Years | House at 2% | House at 3% | House at 4% | Cash, interest spent | Rent collected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 year | $331,500 | $334,750 | $338,000 | $299,000 | $27,648 |
| 3 years | $344,893 | $355,136 | $365,581 | $299,000 | $82,944 |
| 5 years | $358,826 | $376,764 | $395,412 | $299,000 | $138,240 |
| 10 years | $396,173 | $436,773 | $481,079 | $299,000 | $276,480 |
| 15 years | $437,407 | $506,339 | $585,307 | $299,000 | $414,720 |
At five years, the house at a modest 3% is worth about $376,764 and we have collected roughly $138,240 in net rent — a combined position near $515,004. Selling and parking leaves $299,000 in the bank, having paid out $81,362 along the way.
Hot Springs has no restrictions at all. No association, no board, no cap on letting, nobody to ask. We can let it, sell it, leave it empty, or put a tenant in the shop, entirely as we choose. A condominium is the opposite: the association decides what we may do with our own property. Cambridge allows only a limited number of rentals — we would be buying with no guarantee of ever being permitted to let. Owning a house and owning a condominium are not the same kind of owning.
The train runs it in a full day for about $100 each way. At 80 and 81 that is genuinely better than 500 miles behind the wheel — someone else drives, you can walk about, and it costs less than the fuel would.
The honest other side: a full day each way means any visit is a three-day commitment at minimum. That is fine two or three times a year to see a manager or check on the place. It would not be fine if the property needed us often — which is exactly why the manager is not optional, and why their 10% is in every figure in this paper.
This one is usually waved away as intangible. It is not intangible; it is simply slow, and it runs the opposite way to almost everything else in this paper.
Bastrop County draws its water almost entirely from the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer — six layered formations that recharge very slowly. It takes a great deal of rain over a long period to put anything back. And it is under real pressure right now:
We are not a bystander to this. Cedar Creek is in Bastrop County, our house and twelve rental units run on a well, and that well draws on the formation in question. If the drawdowns go through as proposed, the risk is not an inconvenience — it is whether a property with twelve tenants on it has water. That is an existential question for the income, not a comfort question.
The opposite situation, and by a wide margin. The Ouachita region has high rainfall, mountain-fed surface water, and springs protected inside a national park. The house sits on nearly an acre with its own well that we barely use. Air and environment are clean in a way Central Texas is not, and nobody is applying to pump it away by the billion gallons.
The part that matters is not decades away — it is the next few years. These permits are being decided now, and two effects land well inside any timeframe we need to care about. Value moves first: water security is already something buyers price, and Bastrop land with a threatened well will not hold up the way Arkansas land with abundant water does. And it is a hedge: if Central Texas water becomes difficult while we are still here, somewhere with clean water that we own outright is worth considerably more than $299,000 in a savings account. Neither needs a distant forecast to matter — and on our family history we would most likely be here to see the slower effects too.
Worth noting how close to home this is: the regulator deciding these permits is the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District, covering Bastrop and Lee counties — the same body whose remit prompted us to register lostpinesguide.com this month.
We are 80 and 81, and that cuts both ways.
These are not actually in conflict. We can let Echo Point and live in a condominium — by renting the condominium rather than buying it. $1,500–$1,985 a month for a two-bed at the Pointe, no assessments, no property tax, no capital tied up, and the Hot Springs rent paying most of it.
Renting is one lever; the cuts are another, and they add.
About $1,045 a month across roughly fifty-five recurring charges. The biggest single line is YouTube TV at $105 — $1,260 a year. Then LinkedIn Premium at $37 every month, Experian at $29, Rocket Money at $9 (a subscription for cancelling subscriptions, which our bank alerts do free), and a drift of $11–$39 charges that arrived quietly. Halving the stack is about $500 a month, and every one is reversible.
Two Germania policies at $15,348 a year. Three quotes is an afternoon and typically returns about $320 a month.
Ask one question above all when re-shopping: does the policy cover twelve rental units, including RVs and trailers, with tenants above our own residence? If it does not, that matters far more than the premium. A cheaper policy that doesn't cover the exposure is not a saving.
Our single largest recurring payment — $19,488 a year for a vehicle. Paying it off outright ends it, but here is the honest tension: if we don't sell, we don't have the lump sum. Under a rent-it plan the loan amortises on its own schedule and the household reaches $5,502 a month once all three loans finish. The rent bridges the gap until then.
Worth considering: at 80 and 81, no longer hauling between two states, we may not need a large expensive vehicle at all. Trading it down ends the payment now rather than in three years, without touching the house.
| Move | Per month | Per year |
|---|---|---|
| Halve the subscription stack | $500 | $6,000 |
| Re-shop the two insurance policies | $320 | $3,840 |
| Telecom — two carriers doing one job | $180 | $2,160 |
| Keep all twelve units filled and invoiced | $1,912 | $22,944 |
| Domains, Google tiers, Amazon discipline | $320 | $3,840 |
| Without selling anything | $2,278 | $27,336 |
Both halves together. Letting is $2,304 a month; the cuts that require selling nothing are $2,278. That is $4,582 a month, or $54,984 a year, against a household running at about −$647. None of it requires selling the house.
The arithmetic favours keeping. That is not the whole of it, and the things it leaves out run mostly the other way.
| Selling | Keeping and letting | |
|---|---|---|
| Certainty | $299,000, insured, no tenant, no manager. A contracted price. | Estimated rent, an unfound manager, and a market that could soften. |
| Effort | Ends at closing. Nothing further is asked of us. | Ongoing, indefinitely — modest, but never quite finished. |
| The estate | A bank balance. Far simpler for whichever of us is left. | An out-of-state rental to be dealt with at the worst possible time. |
| Reversibility | None. A sale cannot be undone. | Can still be sold later — in a year, in five, or by the estate. |
| Steadiness | Capital that does not grow, since we would be spending the interest. | A paid-for asset that appreciates and pays monthly. |
The honest summary is that they answer different worries. Selling buys simplicity and certainty, which at eighty and eighty-one are worth real money and should not be dismissed as timidity. Keeping buys income and optionality, and costs effort and complication. Neither is the careless choice.
| The Hot Springs house and shop | An Austin condominium |
|---|---|
In favour
|
In favour
|
Against
|
Against
|
The adjoining 2 acres are offered at $90,000, with one house on the land. It sits in the flood plain and the house has a compost toilet rather than conventional sewer — but there is no flood-insurance requirement, and the house can be let. Those were the two objections that would have killed it, and neither applies. So it comes down to the rent.
$90,000 in insured savings pays about $311 a month for no work and no risk. The land has to beat that.
But buying it should also stop some or all of what we pay her every year — money we would simply cease paying whether the house ever lets or not. You do not pay yourself for access across your own land, or for a well you own.
| What we pay her | Per year | Does buying end it? |
|---|---|---|
| Ground lease — the container tract | $1,200 | Yes, if that tract is inside the two acres. The clearest of the three. |
| Access road — the 30-foot easement | $600 | Yes, if the road crosses the land being bought. |
| Shared water well | $600 | Only if the well itself sits on these two acres. |
| All three | $2,400 | $200 a month |
These figures were not always what they are now. The amounts originally agreed were half what we now pay — $300 road, $300 water, $600 ground lease, $1,200 a year in total. They were doubled to $2,400 after our road access was blocked, and we have paid the higher figure since.
| As agreed | As paid | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Road | $300 | $600 | $300 |
| Water | $300 | $600 | $300 |
| Ground lease | $600 | $1,200 | $600 |
| Per year | $1,200 | $2,400 | $1,200 |
We do not contest it, and that is a considered position, not resignation. $2,400 a year for a maintained access road, shared water and the ground lease is still good value — cheaper than the alternatives and cheaper than arguing about it. The history is recorded here not as a grievance to be pursued but because it tells us something useful about how any future negotiation should be handled.
| If buying extinguishes… | Saved /mo | Rent needed to break even |
|---|---|---|
| Nothing — we keep paying all of it | $0 | $579 |
| The ground lease only | $100 | $450 |
| All three | $200 | $322 |
| If the house lets at | Gross | Less 22% | Less tax & insurance | Net /mo | vs savings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $600/mo | $600 | −$132 | −$140 | $328 | +$17 |
| $700/mo | $700 | −$154 | −$140 | $406 | +$95 |
| $800/mo | $800 | −$176 | −$140 | $484 | +$173 |
| $900/mo | $900 | −$198 | −$140 | $562 | +$251 |
| $1,000/mo | $1,000 | −$220 | −$140 | $640 | +$329 |
The 22% is the same repairs, vacancy and management allowance applied to Echo Point. Tax and insurance are estimated at $75 and $65 a month.
The break-even rent falls to about $322 a month once the $200 we stop paying is counted — down from $579 without it. Above that figure the land earns more than the money would sitting in the bank. That is a low bar for a house, and one conversation with a local manager settles whether it clears it.
⚠️ This is the question to take to the lawyer, before any price is agreed. Which of those three does buying these two acres actually end? It turns on which parcel carries the container tract, which land the road crosses, and where the well physically sits — and our copies of those agreements are incomplete. The answer is worth up to $200 a month, and it changes the break-even rent by $256. Do not agree a price without it.
And one argument in favour that has nothing to do with rent. That land is the other side of our shared well agreement and our access easements. Owning it would extinguish those questions permanently — no future purchaser to bind, no unrecorded modification to chase, no well to share. It also makes the combined holding close to three acres, which is a more saleable thing one day than two odd parcels with agreements between them.
The quiet argument for buying is independence, not savings. Today the arrangement works and the price is fair. But our access, our water and our container tract all depend on an agreement with someone else, and it has been revised once already. A house we intend to let to tenants — or eventually to sell — is more exposed to that dependency than one sitting empty. Owning the land removes it entirely: no easement to rely on, no well to share, no annual figure to agree. That is worth something beyond the $200 a month it would save.
The matching caution. Whatever is agreed should be written down properly rather than settled on a handshake. Let the lawyer put it in one document — the note credit, the $8,835 balance correction, and the easement and well questions together, or none of it. Agreeing things piecemeal and by memory is what left the paperwork in the state it is in.
Where it comes out: worth pursuing, on one condition. Get the rent figure. If the house lets above $322 it pays its way from day one and tidies up the easements as a bonus. If it lets below that, it is a tidy-up costing $90,000, and the same certainty can be had from a lawyer for $1,500–$3,500.
We are not an ordinary buyer here. This seller owes us $120,505 — 20 payments of $3,969.50 plus a $41,115 balloon, running to April 2028. That means the land need not be bought with cash at all.
She could convey the land and we credit $90,000 against what she owes. No money leaves our account. Her debt falls from $120,505 to about $30,505. That removes the single biggest objection above — that we do not have $90,000 spare — and it works whether or not we sell Echo Point.
And there is a real structural argument for it. The note is a wasting asset: it pays well, then in April 2028 it stops and is worth nothing. That cliff is the thing this whole household has been planning around. Trading part of it for land converts something that ends into something that does not — and the land keeps paying rent long after the note would have finished.
The honest cost of doing it that way. Those payments are exactly what we were counting on to bridge us to 2028. Crediting $90,000 against the note brings the cliff forward — we would lose roughly $7,500 a month of income for the remaining term in exchange for a house that might return $484 a month. Short-term that is a step backwards, and the household is already running close to breakeven. It only works if we can absorb the gap until the rent replaces it.
There is also the $8,835 we believe the note balance is overstated by. If a purchase is negotiated at all, that correction should be settled inside the same conversation — not left as a separate argument to have later.
What it costs to change our minds: $500. That is the back-out fee on the listing. Whatever else is true, the cost of choosing differently is $500 and one honest conversation — not a trap.
What this paper does not do is pretend the decision is only financial. We are 80 and 81. If living in the middle of Austin, near people and lifts and doctors, is what we actually want, then $3,614 a month is a price worth discussing rather than a verdict. The arithmetic says what things cost. It does not say how to live.
Three things are worth carrying away from all of this.
First, and above everything else: cash we spend does not grow, and a house does. Selling leaves $299,000 that will still be $299,000 in five years, because we would be living on the interest. Keeping and letting puts the house at roughly $376,764 after five years at a modest 3%, with about $138,240 of rent collected along the way — a combined $515,004 against $299,000. On a fifteen-year view, which our family history makes a reasonable one, that becomes about $921,059 against the same $299,000. That gap is the whole financial argument, and it widens the longer we are around to see it.
Second, the letting case survives its own worst case. Even if the shop never lets — the softest number in the paper, and the one most likely to disappoint — letting still returns $1,680 a month against $1,356 for selling. The case does not rest on the figure we doubt.
Third, and cutting the other way: selling depends on nothing we do not already have. No manager to find, no tenant to place, no shop to let, no repair to arrange from 500 miles. Certainty has a value that does not appear in any table here, and at eighty and eighty-one it is not a small one.
So the decision is not really about the money. The money says keep it, and says so clearly. What the money cannot say is whether we want the obligation that comes with it — a house in Arkansas, a manager to trust, and something unfinished behind us for as long as we hold it. That part is not arithmetic, and whichever way it goes, it should be decided together and then left decided.