Unless there is a traditional chapel with valid sacraments nearby I wouldn't recommend moving near any of the communities, as they either celebrate the Novus Ordo or have NO priests celebrate the Latin Mass.
Boggles the mind that there is not a strict-EENS traditional group with valid sacraments, aside from a single chapel here and there 
Indeed. OK, I get it BoD / BoB ... St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine believed in it, and many Trads believe that the Council of Trent taught it.
But somehow that controversy has become conflated with EENS. One could in theory articulate an understanding of these (such as St. Robert Bellarmine limiting it to formal catechumens only) that does not gut Catholics ecclesiology.
But the vast majority of Trads, especially the Trad clergy, blithely go around declaring that non-Catholics can be saved, not only heretics and schismatics, but even infidels.
I really don't understand what their malfunction is. That is in fact THE most fundamental error of Vatican II, the ecclesiology that results from the gutting of EENS.
Many are so oblivious to the problem that when asked what the chief heresy of V2 is will immediately respond with "the new ecclesiology" ... while ironically holding the SAME ECCLESIOLOGY themselves.
It's as if their brains are stuck in some vapor lock due to a cognitive dissonance.
MAJOR: No salvation outside the Church. [dogma]
MINOR: Heretics, schismatics, and even infidels can be saved. [their position]
CONCLUSION: Heretics, schismatics, and even infidels can be in the Church. [unavoidable from the premises]
If you have to be in the Church in order to be saved, and we know you do since it's defined dogma, then if infidels et al. can be saved, it MUST be that they're in the Church somehow.
THAT is in fact V2 ecclesiology in a nutshell, and all the V2 errors flow from it.
If you were to convince me that heretics, schismatics, and infidels could be saved without first converting to the faith and joining the Church ... then I would immediately have to drop all opposition to the theology of Vatican II, as then it must be considered perfectly Catholic. Even Religious Liberty flows directly from this, since once one subjetivizes faith, RL flows from that as an obvioius conclusion.
MAJOR: I have a right to please God and to save my souls.
MINOR: I please God and save my soul by following the lights of my [even erroneous] conscience.
CONCLUSION: I have a right to follow the lights of my [even erroneous] conscience.
I'm absolutely befuddled by how all these otherwise intelligent men have become so dense to this.
Interestingly, Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner actually marvelled that none of the conservative Fathers at V2 made a peep about what he (rightly) considered to be THE most dramatic and radical shift at V2, namely, what he euphemisticaly referred to as the "increasing hope of salvation for non-Catholics". He was a Modernist, but nevertheless a brilliant man, well educated, and intellectually honest (admitted that the Church Fathers almost universally rejected BoD/BoB despite his having wanted to believe otherwise).
Trads will denounce Rathner's "Anomymous Christian" out of one side of their mouths, and then spew their own version of "Anonymous Catholic" ecclesiology out of the other.