thanks to both of you for the responses. i do still love my niobe, but the disappointment has been that i planted it next to an arbor and had visions of it climbing up and onto the top. oh well! now i am thinking that i may move it to another new trellis, where i wouldn't have such "high" expectations. can you recommend a good partner for her there that would be more likely to bloom longer? which makes me think of another question: if i move the niobe from the arbor, what would be a good taller replacement for it, to climb up and on top? i have one clematis on each corner (it's a pretty good sized arbor) - ernest markham, rosemoor, and harlow carr. i like the purple/red combo, and am trying to get some blooming happening all summer. the only one that seems to have the potential to cover the top is the ernest markham. i only planted it last fall and it got to the top this year. sorry for all the extra questions! thanks again, you all are so helpful, and have so much more experience, i really value your opinions!

DonÂt worry about the daffodils: I moved some last year right after blooming and before foliage yellowed because IÂ Âneeded to move some lilies before those got too far along! The lilies took priority. As it turned out the daffodils didnÂt miss a beat, even though most sat in a tray until the new place was ready. They are up in force now and look no different that ones that were planted with more care as to timing. The lilies are pickier, so I agree, get them moved. Carefully. They will reward you and your daughter! I planted Mona Lisa myself last spring and am really looking forward to seeing it!

> The logs would be laid in place, and then broad axes > and/or adzes would be uses to level them. > Our house has logs, some of them with bark still on > them. It is the most solid, square house I have ever > lived in. That's what this looks like: Some of the logs did in fact have bark still on them. And the ends looked hand-cut. > the fact that upper floor is OK, probably means it is > more the under framing of the first floor rather than > the sills and collar beams. Spacing that far part may > require not so much sistering as inleting additional > supporting members under the floor. This is what it's seeming to be, to me: That the structure overall is fine, but there wasn't enough to hold up the first floor once they turned it into a kitchen that had a refridgerator, an oven, a hot water heater (and not just to the side either - kinda just THERE), and at one point some kind of furnace unit. I think it was just all too much for that kind of span without any type of joist underneath it. I'm setting up a time for someone who has experience doing this kind of work to come look at it. It sounds as if my idea of going through the top is potentially appropriate, and could save us on labor cost, and allow us to do some of the sweat work - namely, tearing out the old floor, then installing insulation and vapor barrier, possible run some new circuits across to the other side while we have the opening to do so, and put in a new t&g plywood subfloor - though the budget is looking as if the subfloor might get a coat of sealer plus get covered with something like an indoor/outdoor carpet remant until we're caught back up financially from the contractor expense, before we take on the rest of the kitchen remodel. And Molly, I very much appreciate your candor - I'm making everyone I know promise to be really direct in telling us their concerns about our considering doing this, and there's nothing you've said that isn't realistically a problem. But here's how we're looking at it so far, and answers to some of your questions: > under the circumstances can you get a mortgage with only having essentially a life estate but not title? Nope. No mortgage. However, we are prepared to sell our current house in which we have probably 70k or more in equity which would cover most of the big contractor projects (roof, this project, and my parents have said that they will consider setting up a 20k line of credit for us to use for this as well. We also have no debt except for two car loans that will be paid in 1 and 2 years (though the cars will last much longer), and a relatively student loan that will be paid in three years - no credit card debt. We live a simple life with experience in keeping our basic living expenses low and with living amid the ongiong chaos of renovation. > And if not, then you would be sinking your resources > into this house, and perhaps not able to extract them > should you ever decide living there isn't what meets > your needs. Yes, that's clearly a risk that we take very seriously and have talked about for hours. Our final decision came down to a few different things: First, the house we're in now is already a risk, because it is on leased land without a long term (99-year type) contract, and we could lose absolutely everything if the family that owns the land in this community decided to sell this extremely valuable bay-front area to high-end developers, so we'd only be transferring a risk instead of eliminating it, but we'd be transferring it at least to something where at least we'd be guaranteed the option of staying there for life. Second, we are both in jobs (me in particular) which are both almost guaranteed will be there for as long as we want to work there (we're state employees, what can I say) plus at least my job is my absolute dream job - teaching at a community college, summers off to do some very focused work on this - so I have over 15 years before I'd consider retirement, so we know we're not going to move. And last, with all the work it needs, we just can't discount that it's been our dream to do this - get an old house in the country and fix it up. Except this way we don't have the fix up expenses on top of a hefty mortgage, we just have the fix-up expenses. And ultimatly we'd be living in a beautiful old house on 10.5 acres of land in the country. > Could you transfer your interest and recoup some of the > costs? Nope. If we walk away, we walk away. > These are the kinds of projects that lead to hefty > second mortgages ....! (And sometimes second marriages > when the first one flames out under the stress of > unending, and expensive, renovations.) Oh, yes, we know. Which is why we're doing a contract about what would happen with the house if we were to end our relationship! We're no fools. But we also have good support systems which from our experience can make all the difference inthe world, from people to call on to come over and help when a project gets too overwhelming and we need it to be DONE a lot faster than its going, to good friends who will take one of us in and help both of us work things out if we need a day or week or month or two of breathing room. Plus, as I said, we've done this. Both of us have things that make us nuts when things are in chaos, but still we've lived with that chaos, and know that some things that would make other people nuts - such as our friends who said that they couldn't even move in until every bit of plaster was repaired and every room was painted and the kitchen was fully remodeled. Those things don't get to us, as long as we have a way to escape it, which we do.

Your soil choice and how you water is what determines when it's appropriate to fertilize - not the season. Mother nature doesn't remove the nutrients from the soil during periods of quiescence, predictive dormancy, OR consequential dormancy, and her plants don't seem to suffer setback due to her indifference. Nearly all who offer the well-worn advice that you shouldn't fertilize in the winter can't tell you why they offer the advice, and don't realize it's based on the assumption you'll be watering in sips for the entire winter to avoid root rot. Advice based on assumptions needs to be qualified lest it be misapplied. The advice 'not to fertilize during the winter months' assumes you'll be using a water-retentive soil you can't flush regularly w/o worrying about root rot and impaired root function. Not flushing regularly ensures not only a rapid build-up from fertilizer salts and minerals in tap water, it also causes badly skewed nutrient ratios, which in turn create antagonistic deficiencies, which occur when a toxicity (excess) of 1 nutrient causes a deficiency of another (or more) nutrient(s). Using a healthier soil you CAN flush regularly eliminates not only the over-watering concern, but the worry about build-up of mineral salts from fertilizer and tap water. Flushing the soil regularly effectively purges the soil of nutrients, sort of like pushing the fertilizer reset button and returning the salt levels to 0. THEN, when you DO fertilize with an appropriate, you can plan the solution strength so you're at the lowest possible concentration nutrients you can have w/o deficiencies, which is optimal. That is impossible to achieve by withholding nutrients. If you ARE using a water-retentive soil, your best course is to: ** Wait until your plant needs water to flush the soil THOROUGHLY by pouring room temp water = to at least 10X the volume of the pot the plant is in through the soil. ** To ensure the pot drains well, employ a wick through the bottom at the sidewall and tip the planting 45* so the wick is at the lowest point, and let it drain. ** Right the plant and slowly apply what the manufacturer suggests as a full strength fertilizer solution over the entire soil surface until about a cup comes out of the drain hole. ** Tip it again until it stops draining. Since you're fertilizing an already wet soil, the water already in the pot will act to dilute your full strength solution so it's somewhere around 1/3-1/2 strength, so don't worry you'll be over-fertilizing. ** Repeat the steps every 4-6 weeks if you're watering in sips. If you're using a high quality soil you can water properly, you can fertilize at very low rates every time you water (I do), all winter long. The only extra effort it takes is measuring 1/4 tsp into every gallon of water you irrigate with. Got all that? Al