In discussing why he doesn't want to live in Seattle/a city, Phil addressed the statement that the city has better restaurants. Phil said that there are a few good restaurants, but the pollution, crime, cost of living, etc., are all worse. So, Phil says, you can just drive into the city every so often and just go to the restaurants and then come home. That's what he does.
1. Phil is admitting that he drives into Seattle to eat at restaurants, but has no money.
2. This logic is sound. But it begs the question why he needs to live in an expensive area of an expensive state considering he could be doing exactly the same thing elsewhere, including closer to his parents, for a much lower cost of living.
Phil went on to say he got stir crazy last year. He wants to go out to a restaurant every so often. But he does prefer staying home 'way more than most other people'.
When you're broke, it's crucial that you only leave the house with the express intent of spending extra money on something you could have done at home, but chose to go out for instead. Going for a walk in a park? Fuck that.