u/BudFox_LA

"TLDR bRo" = Please see title and skim. Bolded the key parts

For context, married (2nd), 2 kids (50/50 joint custody). We live in the Crescenta Valley/North East SF valley foothills area of Los Angeles. After my divorce, and after getting outbid regularly by cash buyers on shoeboxes in my area, I found a great 2+2 renovated craftsmen to rent back in 19' and it's been very good to me/us. Front and back yards, gardeners & water included, well landscaped, nice neighborhood, character, lot of greenery, garage, driveway, off street parking, quiet, etc. 1300 sq ft. for currently $3100 a month. If we moved tomorrow, they could get $4200 for it, easy. The kids (girls) are 13 and 9 and are regularly complaining about sharing a room at this point. It's ongoing. The other wild card is they are currently LAUSD. While this has been ok so far, we'd like to move to La Crescenta/Montrose as the schools are top notch there and it's a nicer area. The high school they'd go to is better. For context, I/we are bound to this area due to separation agreement in divorce decree. So no, we can't "just move". All their friends are here, all they know is here and their mom and I co-parent well, we live a few miles apart and 5 min from their schools. No one wants to commute 90 min each day in LA traffic for school drop offs/ pickups.

We have been feeling like the place is getting cramped and the allure of the better schools and hood is strong. We make $230k HHI, and my net worth is around $850k. I still pay child support, because income disparity between me and their mother, despite joint custody. (Thanks CA divorce laws 🙄) The dilemma is this: if we tried to buy in the area, with $200k down, our monthly housing cost would still almost double. We have an agent, are pre-approved and haveve looked for over a year and the inventory is horrible. Now, to rent a 3+2 would be at least $1500 more a month. Currently housing is 1/4 of our income and I'm able to max out retirement accounts, fund their 529 accounts, brokerage, take some vacations etc. We have a decent life. I do not want to be house poor. Other thing is that there are zero single family homes in our price range. Really. Anything decent starts at $900-950k and that needs work for sure. Buying somewhere affordable means moving to the IE or something and that is not happening. So for rent, we're looking at $4500-5500 p/mo. And it's mostly condos and townhouses. This alone would be a maor quality of living downgrade. No more outdoors spaces or greenery, walking out to the garage in my boxers across the backyard, playing catch in the driveway, etc etc. Living on top and below people, people on all sides.

So the question is this: Having described what we have now, is it worth adding $1500-2500 p/month to our base housing cost for 1 more bedroom in a slightly nicer area (w/potentially worse house). Is it worth living in a crappier place for a better school district? Or do we tell the kids tough luck?

49M. Been dealing with VT for almost 3 years now, started with PVCs, which over time caused lower EF (40), got on meds, EF went back up, VT episode in summer '23 put me in the ER, was cardioverted etc. New meds, stabilized, barrage of tests, angio, MRI etc, all clear, no structural problems, clear arteries, small scar on heart. Awesome. End up back in the ER in Jan of this year, same deal but got back into rhythm with amiodarone. They had been bugging me to do an ICD since '23 but I resisted. After this last one, had the ICD put in. Went smoothly, arrhythmias came in hot though after the procedure, kept getting paced and then shocked once. That was a bummer 🙄 They then put me on amiodarone which completely eliminated the VT, but in 2 months has jacked my liver enzymes. Scheduled VT ablation.

I go in in a month, to the ucla cardiac arrhythmia center. Top notch EP guy doing the ablation. Frankly I'm scared shitless. They say it's 'routine' and that I'm home that night. Doesn't seem routine to me. I've read some horror stories and they've advised me that it 'may not work'. Thanks in advance for sharing any experiences or anecdotes.

At a bit of crossroads, coming up here in a year (I'm a planner) with my lease ending on a 2024 X3 30i. The car is probably, all told, the best (but not most exciting) daily driver I've ever had. It's quick, handles and rides very well, comfortable, tech is fine, looks alright, gets good mpg for what it is. End of the day though it's a suburban family cruiser. I've had various Japanese Econo-boxes in the past, a GTI (which was very fun but a lemon), a 320i, 328i coupe 6 Spd, 328i and now this. Initially I was thinking of upgrading to an X5 or something at lease end. But I can't help but think that for someone who enjoys cars and driving, that it's just another compromise. And a much more expensive one at that. Expensive to buy, expensive to own. Sure it will be more luxurious, more comfortable, a little faster, it'll have the B58 engine etc. but it's a fuckin barge. A mammoth. Physics dictates that the trade off is clear with all the virtues I mentioned vs. just driving fun

So I wonder if just buy the x3 at lease end (payoff is $27k) and keep it as a daily for a long time, and put the extra money into something that I'll really enjoy driving. Been lurking on Bring a Trailer, looking at mid 2000s Porsche 997, or something like that. For car guys, is the 2 car solution the only way?