
09/17/06, 12:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northern Wisconsin
Posts: 799
|
|
|
Count me in with those who believe this is a horrendously bad idea. Vacant land yes. Purchasing land with a house on it in this type of rural area....never.
Purchasing land with a house means doing long distance maintenance (plumbing, septic pumping, painting, roofing, lawn care, local matters, etc) and you'll either have to leave it vacant or rent it.
Leaving it vacant is unthinkable, as there probably isn't an insurance company that will cover it.
Renting it is almost as unthinkable. Since relatively low interest rates and easy credit are the norm, most of the potentially responsible renters have joined the ranks of homeowners. In rural areas, you'll likely be besieged by bottom feeders wanting to rent your place. Friends of mine in the property rental business avoid rural rental properties. Just plain too many deadbeats. They all have rental properties in cities, even if they are small ones.
With the proliferation of Methamphetamine addiction in Arkansas/Missouri, you'll have to ask yourself if you're ready to roll the dice and hope you don't wind up with a bunch of them on your property, where they will inevitably turn your property into a toxic dump site.
I am not saying Arkansas/Missouri is any better or any worse of an area than any other rural area of the country. I'm only saying I think the concept of owning a rural house ANYWHERE while you live 1000+ miles away is a bad idea.
|