To detest people that think they own beautiful parts of the world?

Not so undesirable if they had a choice about who to sell it to.

competitive pricing tends to result in a sale regardless of the area, that cannot be a shock to you? Of course she could have held out to see if a different family could get closer to the developers offer but as I said her principles were more important than money.

I don't want to stay in a hotel. I want more space. I don't just want a bed.
I certainly don't want to stay in a caravan. I want a house. And so called lodges are already expensive enough. So that will drive the prices up and the tourists out and what will happen to the jobs where tourism is the main industry?
If locals cannot afford to buy in their area then they need to buy in a cheaper area when starting out. My parents bought in the cheapest area they could, in a town neither of them lived, just to get on the property ladder and they moved up and out when they could afford it.

If the prices are being forced up by investors then the locals who are selling can easily say no, we want to sell to a family or to a couple starting out. But more often than not they sell to the highest bidder, which is often an investor. No one is forcing the vendors to do this.

I think the problem with “Families should stand on principles and sell at a ‘fair price’ to a local instead” is: Suppose I do this, and sell to Jane, a local at a fair price. There is nothing to stop Jane then turning around and deciding to sell it to a Down From Londoner for a vastly inflated price six months later. So the house still ends up being a holiday home, and the only thing my principles have done is made me look and feel like a right mug.

So it’s greed, fair enough.

Not so undesirable if they had a choice about who to sell it to.

But then greedy local Jane is the problem. Locals must police themselves if they want to keep outsiders out. If they’re not prepared to do that then they need to stop whinging.

Well maybe they had the luxury of waiting for someone local who wasn't a developer to come along. It's probably actually easier to act ethically in a highly desirable area.

Not really, it was an unfashionable part of London. Plus many of the touristy areas on this thread are highly desirable but people want more money. That’s fine but at least acknowledge that.

Well as I said it depends if you live in a desirable area and have a choice.

If you don't, and you need to sell to whoever comes along, then you take what you can get. But I guess those circumstances aren't what we're talking about here anyway.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/12/abersoch-second-homes-holiday-wales

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/30/staycation-boom-forces-tenants-out-of-seaside-resort-homes

Okay, so shit like this is acceptable then?

So what you're saying is, people should be forced out of areas where they grew up and have friends and family because they aren't wealthy?

Plus, pretty areas have their down sides, such as lack of public transport or amenities. You should be careful what you wish for.

That is also a very good point.

Absolutely. You can’t say it’s ok for the sellers to disregard ethics due to need (or no doubt greed in some cases), but say the buyers are unethical. If locals want to maintain the area for fellow locals, it’s in their absolute power to do that. They can’t have it both ways.

Wherever you live now?

I am not "local" to where I live now but I've lived here long enough to qualify for local homes for local people schemes if I needed it. I did grow up in a touristy desirable area but as I've not lived there for years I wouldn't qualify there.

My inlaws have a "second home", one that DH's granny used to live in. It's only an hour away, they don't rent it out but let family and friends go down and use it when it's available and we used to go down there for a cheap break several times a year. I'm going with my mates soon. Inlaws also go there a lot when the weather is good and to maintain it. Everyone who goes there spends money in local shops and pubs (and pays a fortune to the council in parking fees). I don't see anything wrong with that TBH.

@Riplongboi 😆😆😆 did they think the “Londoners” who had gone home had turfed locals out of their houses or moved in without permission?!

I think the problem with “Families should stand on principles and sell at a ‘fair price’ to a local instead” is: Suppose I do this, and sell to Jane, a local at a fair price. There is nothing to stop Jane then turning around and deciding to sell it to a Down From Londoner for a vastly inflated price six months later. So the house still ends up being a holiday home, and the only thing my principles have done is made me look and feel like a right mug.

Well maybe they had the luxury of waiting for someone local who wasn't a developer to come along. It's probably actually easier to act ethically in a highly desirable area.

Omg I will never forget those 😂

The LONDONERS are escaping and ruining Christmas!!!!! Errrrr no, we’re all with our London based families… in London.

People sell to whoever they can sell to, don't they.

Surely it depends if price is more important than ethics. I just don’t get the logic of criticising the buyers but not the sellers. My relative only sold to a local family and refused a developer.

There is currently an argument about the effects of the second home tax in some parts of Wales like Tenby.

It has reduced the number of homes being used for AirBnB and second homes. But there has been an increase in people moving into the area to live there full time. A positive trend, you might thing, but the people moving in tend to be elderly. They don’t spend much and use a lot of expensive government services. It’s not clear this is a win for these areas.

...but we shouldn't have tourists in residential property while locals have to live in hotels or camp because they can't find a residential property. That is the wrong way around!

I disagree. If lower-cost housing is not protected for the locals, we shall lose the country. Rich Russians and Arabs and the like will buy all the best places and what will be left for a native teaching assistant? And why?

The problem is, through no fault of my own, I wasn't 'born and brought up' somewhere. We moved a bit as a child. I never lived near my family or had those kinds of roots, a fact I have struggled with a lot. Where should we 'nomads' go? I have a strong connection to where I spent the majority of my formative years, but I would have no 'local rights' there. I have no real 'local rights' anywhere except one small town I have never lived in and have no wish to live in now my remaining family there has died.
So where do you put me?

I get your point but tourism can be quite disruptive to the lives of locals. I live in Greenwich, the streets are so narrow, the train station is tiny with one lift and there are no public toilets. The crossings are too small for the crowds of people that need to cross the road etc. Despite that it's always choc full of tourists every single weekend. There's even always a massive queue for the swings in the park 🫣 I do think people should be allowed to go about their business without being overcrowded/ having that constant frantic vibe of too many people/constant tourism. Plus the shops are catered to tourists for example we don't have a proper supermarket.

Goodness knows where those stats come from. I don't know anyone overseas with a second home. I do know that they are quite common in the Nordic countries, but they are lodges in rural areas and aren't places that could be used for full time residential use anyway - eg the ones in Finland don't have flush toilets.

There is a difference between somebody buying a property in a “lovely place” to actually work and live there.

Or as a 2nd (3rd, 4th…) home or simply an investment opportunity.

The latter are generally considered to be more problematic.

But if we’re simply talking about the former, it’s essentially a discussion about potentially pricing locals out of their own towns, villages and neighbourhood (aka gentrification) and mobility (social and geographical mobility).