Background: I've been mulling over the idea of moving closer to Minneapolis, being closer to friends (and girlfriend), at the cost of a longer commute... I've been thinking about my future in general, realizing that the job I've found myself in is actually a really good fit for me. So I'd like to stick with it, even if socially I'd like to be in Minneapolis.
And here comes the tricky bit. I just got a note in the mail yesterday from my leasing company asking if I want to move to a luxury apartment across town, at a reduction in rent of $90/mo. It's on the west side of town, instead of the north side... nearer the highway, but a little bit south. A wash in terms of commute and getting to Minneapolis, I think. The lease would start over, and I'd probably end up with a lease that expires in March 2005.
Which would tie me down to Rochester that much longer, and keep me from getting a house for that much longer. I don't think I have down payment, nor the will, to get even that much more tightly tied down to Rochester, so the house thing is probably not an issue. And in any case I'm unlikely to be able to time a change in venue with this May, so why not make it next March instead of May 2005 when my lease will run out?
There's a fitness center, a heated underground garage, and a pool at the new place. It's $90 cheaper a month for the slightly bigger 2bed/2bath, and a move wouldn't be too painful. The only downside I can see is being committed to renting in Rochester for an extra 10 months. There may be issues with construction noise, or difficulty getting to the highway, but... I suspect it's not bad, and it'd still be faster than getting to the highway from my current place. The downsides are minimal, really, once I admit to myself that talk of moving to Minneapolis is a bit far off, realistically... :-/
So yeah, I'll take a look and see if there's any obvious problems.