One thing I've had trouble modeling is the apples-to-oranges future value characterization of property in California (and New York, I guess) vs most of the rest

One thing I've had trouble modeling is the apples-to-oranges future value characterization of property in California (and New York, I guess) vs most of the rest of the country. In CA, property values are sky high to begin with and you have to pay property tax on them, but if you buy in certain areas, you stand a fair chance of your property appreciating by 10% or more per year. Elsewhere (Smalltown USA), property values are 1/10th what they are in those same areas of CA, but you generally can't expect anywhere near the same appreciation on the property. So what, do you consider the appreciation as "inflow" (vs "income" because it's taxed differently when you sell) and take it into account when you are doing retirement planning? You definitely could, and maybe discount the appreciation by some pessimism factor to account for some possible future situation where housing values get get in half. For me it's a lot easier to think about if I just live somewhere where a house in 30 years will (inflation adjusted) cost very roughly what it does today.