| Register  | FAQ  | Search | Login 
It is currently Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:34 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:24 pm 
Offline
Nailed to the V

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:36 pm
Posts: 572
Location: West LA
My husband and I are in a bit of a pickle and we don't have the experience to make an educated decision, so I'm hoping you guys can weigh in with your usual brilliance. The lease on my current apartment expires the same day that my baby is due. We just received a notice from our landlord that our rent will be going up $600 per month (which is both ridiculous and out of our budget). My husband was able to convince the landlord to give us a 3 month reprieve on the rent increase, but it only delays our inevitable move-out.

My question is, which would be worse:

1. moving 2 weeks before my due date; or
2. moving with a 3 month old baby

_________________
http://veggielawyer.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:28 pm 
Offline
Has Isa on speed dial
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:41 am
Posts: 84
Location: W Mi
Ugh. I moved with a 6 month old. Not fun. I'd say before because you may be able to catch up on sleep. Either way not a fun situation to be in. I suppose it could've been worse but packing in small bursts is NOT easy. Lack of sleep and raging hormones do not make for a happy mommy. Plus packing? Yuck.

_________________
Formerly peach b.s.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:29 pm 
Offline
Dislikes Rick Santorum
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:51 am
Posts: 5245
Location: United States of New England
realistically your husband is going to have to do all the moving stuff (ie lifting and carrying) himself so either way you probably wont be able to help much.
if your 2 weeks before your due date you're certainly not going to be lifting stuff and if you have a 3 month old you will probably be occupied with that unless you have relatives who can watch the baby while you move.

if you can find another place to live and have everything all set in time i would vote for 2 weeks before. then you can at least help a little. you wont be able to lift/carry things but you can help unpack and organize i would think. and you could carry smaller items.

having a three month old i would think would add a lot of stress to the process.

good luck! i cant even believe they raised rent $600 a month. that is a ridiculous increase! im so sorry you have to go through this!

_________________
Lisa's CSA Blog 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:29 pm 
Offline
Wears Durian Helmet
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:52 pm
Posts: 871
Location: Central Alberta, Canada
I think it would be worse to move right before your due date. Moving with a 3 month old is doable, in my experiences.

_________________
Formerly onestrangegirl, by golly!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:33 pm 
Offline
Semen Strong
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:10 pm
Posts: 18851
Location: Cliffbar NJ
I'd take the extension and look - extra time never hurt anyone, especially if you have a tight budget or other constraints. That way, you're lessening the risk of being forced to take a place you don't like. The timing would be less important to me than finding a nice place to move to.

_________________
My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:35 pm 
Offline
Drinks Wild Tofurkey
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:51 am
Posts: 2770
The hard part is you don't know what kind of baby you will have. Some of my friends have babies that are cool to sit back and relax and watch you do things. If you have this baby packing won't be too bad and neither will be moving. I have a baby that need to be held 24/7 and would scream nonstop when I wasn't holding him, so to me, moving before is much, much better. Either way, pack as much as you can now. I mean everything you won't absolutely need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:51 pm 
Offline
Married to the wolfman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:49 pm
Posts: 5934
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
I moved about a month and a half before the Emperor was born. It wasn't so bad. I packed a little every day and had help with the heavy lifting.

Wouldn't have wanted to try to move with him at 3 months, but we were first time parents and he was a rough baby. My second son was sweet and mellow and moving with him at 3 months would have been fine.

_________________
"Hummus; a gentleman's vice." -- Mars

coldandsleepy cooks, THE BLOG!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:54 pm 
Offline
Married to the wolfman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:49 pm
Posts: 5934
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Also, re heavy lifting, it's also hard to say where you'll be. I didn't mind lifting heavy stuff while pregnant with my first, and I carried said first around til the day #2 was born. It's awkward with a big belly but not impossible. (Furniture you will almost definitely want help with though.)

_________________
"Hummus; a gentleman's vice." -- Mars

coldandsleepy cooks, THE BLOG!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:58 pm 
Offline
***LIES!!!***
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:10 pm
Posts: 3701
I would have died moving with a 3-month-old. And I was carrying boxes up and down stairs every day at work till the day I delivered. I don't think I'd have wanted to carry huge boxes because of the belly, but not because I felt I couldn't or that it was dangerous or anything.

Tofulish has a good point about making sure you can find a good place, but I don't know what the market is like in your area. I've been looking for a new place to live for over a year and haven't found anything that is in our budget and livable, but my sister just bought a house in Nevada after looking for like a month. You never know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:41 pm 
Offline
Dead by dawn
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:54 pm
Posts: 7784
Location: Seattle
The potential problem I see with planning to move 2 weeks before your due date is that you could go into labor early. At least if you wait until the baby's born you know that pesky things like labor and delivery aren't going to get in the way of your moving plans. Plus, as Tofulish pointed out, more time to look for a place. However... I have never moved with a baby so...

_________________
facebook
"The PPK: Come for the pie; stay for the croissants." - tinglepants!
"Cockblocked by Richard Branson- again!" - Erika Soyf*cker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:02 pm 
Offline
Chip Strong
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:00 am
Posts: 952
Yeah, I wouldn't have had a problem lifting things shortly before my due date, but I went into labor at a little over 38 weeks, so that would have been a bit of a problem!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:09 pm 
Offline
Has it on Blue Vinyl
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:42 pm
Posts: 2196
I moved two weeks before my due date. It sucked, but I would still probably take that option over moving with a tiny baby. There is the threat of early labor to add to your stress, but for myself I felt like it was pretty unlikely that I'd pop on that one particular day (and if I did we'd just have to deal). In the end, my baby ended up coming almost two weeks late. Convenient!

I moved heavy boxes, cleaned the old house and the new one top to bottom, ran a heavy and awkward rug shampooing machine, etc. - everyone's different and you might be able to help more than you'd think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:33 pm 
Offline
Bathes in Braggs
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:11 pm
Posts: 1324
Location: Montreal
either way, start packing now... you can get a lot of the work out of the way now, and hire movers for the heavy stuff. i'd probably choose to move at 2 weeks before, as you don't know how your labour and recovery will be, or what kind of sleep dep you'll be dealing with.


i'd also look into your tenant rights, as i believe it's illegal almost everywhere to jack up the rent that much in one year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
Should Write a Goddam Book Already
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:14 pm
Posts: 1072
Location: 'Burbs of California
I'd move before the due date. I'm sure it will suck, but it will still probably be easier than moving with a young baby.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:46 pm 
Offline
Seagull of the PPK
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:46 pm
Posts: 7848
Location: Brasil
littlebird wrote:
either way, start packing now... you can get a lot of the work out of the way now..... i'd probably choose to move at 2 weeks before, as you don't know how your labour and recovery will be, or what kind of sleep dep you'll be dealing with.


i'd also look into your tenant rights, as i believe it's illegal almost everywhere to jack up the rent that much in one year.

+1 yummy to all of this.

_________________
Buddha says 'Meh'.--matwinser
I'm just a drunk who likes fruit. -- Desdemona


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:37 pm 
Offline
Wears Durian Helmet

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:18 pm
Posts: 856
If you have a place already picked out I would move before the due date as well. I moved about 1 month before my due date and was able to pack and carry the small items and organize and sort at the new place. Now with a baby (even though he is very good!) I would have so much trouble because he either needs attention or he is sleeping and needs quiet - plus if you are a schedule sort of person a move would totally jack up a sleeping schedule I would imagine...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:42 pm 
Offline
Nailed to the V

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:36 pm
Posts: 572
Location: West LA
Thanks everyone. Sadly, the rent increase isn't illegal provided that they give us 60 days notice. (The original notice was too short, but now that they've given us the extra 3 months, they aren't violating any law I can find.) The truly ridiculous thing is that there is no way they can rent to a new tenant at the rate they are trying to get us to pay -- no one looking in that price range would settle for our building. My husband is going to take a look at some apartment listings today to get a sense of what's available in our price range, but we're still completely undecided about whether to move now or later.

_________________
http://veggielawyer.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:17 pm 
Offline
***LIES!!!***
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:10 pm
Posts: 3701
bcakes wrote:
Thanks everyone. Sadly, the rent increase isn't illegal provided that they give us 60 days notice. (The original notice was too short, but now that they've given us the extra 3 months, they aren't violating any law I can find.) The truly ridiculous thing is that there is no way they can rent to a new tenant at the rate they are trying to get us to pay -- no one looking in that price range would settle for our building. My husband is going to take a look at some apartment listings today to get a sense of what's available in our price range, but we're still completely undecided about whether to move now or later.


Are they trying to get rid of tenants so they can go condo or something?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:44 pm 
Offline
Has it on Blue Vinyl
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:44 pm
Posts: 2144
If I moved 2 weeks before my due date, I would have been moving w/a 1 week old! 3 months seems much more doable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline
Drunk Dialed Ian MacKaye
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:47 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: vancouver island
kimba wrote:
If I moved 2 weeks before my due date, I would have been moving w/a 1 week old! 3 months seems much more doable.

Yeah, me too! (For my first anyway.) I'd rather not have the stress of my labour potentially coinciding with moving. Either way, start packing anything and everything you can right away. Pare down each room - especially the kitchen! I always find I have so many more random things in there to pack up at the last minute, so it's helpful to cut that down a bit in advance. If you can, hire someone to do the moving, Expensive but so much easier. Good luck on a smooth moving day!

_________________
when you realise how perfect everything is, you will tilt you head back and laugh at the sky. -buddha


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline
Nooch of Earl
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:18 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Bella Napoli
kimba wrote:
If I moved 2 weeks before my due date, I would have been moving w/a 1 week old! 3 months seems much more doable.



Good point - I would've been in early labor!

I know people who've done moves within the last month of pregnancy and shortly after birth. I would have been really frustrated trying to unpack while having a newborn around, and there would have been no way I could get a house unpacked and how I wanted to within 2 weeks of when the baby was born. Assume that right after the birth you just won't have time for anything besides sitting. Counterintuitive but true!

Granted, we have nearly 18,000 lbs of crepe. If you have less stuff, maybe your unpacking is less painful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:53 pm 
Offline
Bathes in Braggs
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:11 pm
Posts: 1324
Location: Montreal
haha, actually, yeah, that's a good point. if i'd moved at 38 weeks pregnant, i'd have been moving with a 3 week old that had only been out of the hospital for one week. maybe it would be better to aim for 3 months. i'd still try to get ALL the things packed before baby arrives and be super minimal. lots of take-out and disposable stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:30 pm 
Offline
Semen Strong
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:10 pm
Posts: 18851
Location: Cliffbar NJ
If your due date is October 10, then do you think you can find a place and move for Sept 15 or is that cutting it too close. And definitely talk to a housing rights clinic about contesting the termination. It is generally a time-consuming and annoying process to get someone evicted, so you could in theory, just refuse to leave at 3 months and maybe do a month to month situation, though that may have its own stresses.

I am sending you tons of good thoughts. We had to pack up all our things when I was 8 months pregnant because we were having our floor sanded and 5 days of being out of our house and away from the comforts of my home made me completely batty. I hope that things go smoothly and easily for you and that you can make the transition not suck. There has to be a special circle of hell for people who would make someone move in late pregnancy.

_________________
My oven is bigger on the inside, and it produces lots of wibbly wobbly, cake wakey... stuff. - The PoopieB.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:05 pm 
Offline
Nailed to the V

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:36 pm
Posts: 572
Location: West LA
Thanks again. I think we're sold on staying put for 3 months and then moving. All the tales of early babies have convinced me that it's too risky to move so close to my due date. My husband was born a month early, so baby might take after his Dad.

I'm going to take your advice to start on packing now, though. This weekend we are going to go through our stuff and get rid of garbage and items we can donate.

_________________
http://veggielawyer.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Which is worse...
PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline
Attended Chelsea Clinton's Wedding

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:01 am
Posts: 205
Location: Oslo, Norway
your due date is a 90% likelihood of giving birth 3 weeks before to 2 weeks after that date. 2 weeks before your due date IS a realistic due date. I think staying for 3 months is undoubtedly the right choice. I'm moving to Iceland when my as-of-now-still-a-fetus-I-can't-believe-I-am-still-pregnant will be 4 months old.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum and fancied up by What Cheer