I'm not looking at this situation with rose colored glasses or anything, however, we have to take this one step at a time. 

We've been searching for almost a year for a house hack around Baltimore with decent public schools, so when I saw this particular home I put on my rose colored glasses.

If I were in her shoes I maybe doing the same and I suspect most of you.

However, Rose Fernandez stated “The problem is simple: bankers, developers, and landlords have been allowed to charge our families more and more and provide us with less and less,” which reminds me of an article I read during about Well's Fargo and their subprime mortgages.I am inclined to agree with Rose, Baltimore MD and other cities are experiencing similar issues.

But here's the other shoe in your case - You cannot exchange into improvements on property you own. 

@Isabella Rose, I think that's a very strategic path to take. 

Based on “substance over form” principles, it ruled that the IRA did not really own Roth Inc for two main reasons:The IRA was exposed to no significant risk; andAn independent person in the IRA’s shoes could not realistically have expected a benefit.Since the IRA did not really “own” Roth Inc, the income really belonged to the taxpayer – and putting that money into the IRA resulted in a taxable “excess contribution”.

I am hoping to be in your shoes one day and have the years of experience in the Springs. 

If I were in your shoes I would put 20% down, which eliminates the PMI on your mortgage and allows for a pretty huge market swing without you going underwater on your home. 

I'm sure you were in my shoes at one time.