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

I'm obviously not going to tell you but it was disgusting.

Where are you that people were shitting publicly on the ground??

As far as I'm concerned, locals trump outsiders. I know of villages in nice areas where half the houses are empty throughout the year yet people have to move away from their families because they can't afford to live there. Even if they build new houses, they couldn't afford them.

Local communities die because they're driven away from the area due to escalating house prices. When loads of houses are turned into Airbnbs to accommodate tourists, locals have nowhere to rent.

I'm from a rural area and there's a lot of house building going on. Obviously there's no investment in infrastructure and the area is barely recognisable.

During COVID the area was discovered and people were defecating on the land where children play and people walk their dogs. They littered the area endangering wildlife and polluting the rivers and there was nowhere to park.

I don’t disagree with your logic op; it is the ultimate entitlement to say beautiful places should be reserved for those who were born there and tourists shouldn’t be welcome. But some people never see their privalge or entitlement.

its also incredibly odd when the local economy relies on the tourist pound. Talk about biting off the hand that feeds you.

no one is entitled to any area, and no one is entitled to drive anyone else out.

YANBU

I grew up in Cobham. A perfect London suburb with a still functional high street. London on your door step, the Surrey hills next door. Great state schools.

I couldn't afford to stay obviously. The area has gone from Gin and Jag country to the Beverly Hills of the UK. Every other car is a lambo or new plate Range Rover.

Hence the name I now live in Rugby. A very much less desirable part of the world.

One day I may work my way back but it does make me laugh when people say they have a birth right to live where they are born. 😂

You really don't!

I think it’s entirely reasonable for people who were born and raised in a particular area to be able to buy or rent a property in that area, if that’s what they want to do. They may wish to be near family and friends. They may have work locally. They may simply want to stay where it’s familiar.

no one seems to think this about Londoners though.

And then they get criticised for moving to other areas when they are priced out of their own

Do londoners own london?

The alternative viewpoint...

Leaving aside the second homes (which are a much bigger problem).

I am from a 'desirable' area (cold wet and midgy but it does have pretty mountains). My family is from here, and my ancestors fought for their right to stay (Highland Clearances). Historically this has been a very difficult place to live. Now technology makes it easier, everyone wants to live here. Funnily it's mostly people who have had lucrative careers elsewhere in the country who then want to buy houses with their capital acquired elsewhere and outbid local people who have generally poorly paid jobs because that's what the majority of jobs are here. Some inward movement is very welcome, but the scale of it is untenable. If this is allowed to go on unabated there will be no locals left. Whole swathes of the people I went to school with are unable to live here in the place they grew up.

My village and nearby villages are full of my parents, aunties, uncles, cousins, and my husband's too. I don't give a shiny shit about the pretty mountains - this is my home, the place I am from. Should I be forced to move away to allow you your equal 'right' to live here? The place where I know every rock and stream, where I know the vast majority of the people who live here, our shared history, our language, our entire lives? Because you think the mountains are pretty?

Part of the issue is people who weren't born in an area and live 90% of their time in big cities buy up all the local property which then lies empty except for 5 weeks of the year. This drives up prices for true locals and means they can't afford to live in the villages they were born in.
Or people who visit and have zero respect for the place they are visiting, or think the countryside is a playground rather than a work place.

Completely agree OP, I was born and raised in London on a council estate, I’ve now lived in two beautiful tourist hotspots and absolutely despise the gate keeping and drawbridge raising attitudes I’ve sometimes encountered, it goes hand in hand with NIMBYISM for me as well, people don’t like to share. But birth is a lottery, some get a shit deal and if they want to move as adults to these places, it’s a free market and nobody has a birthright or owns pretty areas.

I live in a tourist hot-spot and have no issue with tourists visiting IF they are considerate. Sadly since COVID there has been an increase in dog fouling, dogs on dog free beaches, littering, illegal parking, etc etc.

Alot of holiday lets are owned by the people who live in these hotspots, its not all 'incomers', and who is sellkng the properties to 2nd home owners from outside?

I think air b&bs and second homes should be taxed/legislated out of existence. Holiday makers should stay in hotels/ caravan parks/purpose built lodges.

I think if that happened then the housing would cope a lot better with people that do actually want to live in the place.

Social housing/affordable housing can require a local connection but there isn't enough of that to solve the shortage for locals.

In some areas youngsters will move away for better paid work and life experiences and then I think they would lose that right to local connection housing anyway. Do you think local youngsters should be able to move away but still get priority if they want to move back? (Genuine question).

People do 'own' the most beautiful and desirable parts of the world though, don't they? They live there, they own the property there, they pay their council tax there, they contribute to and develop the community and set the culture there, so obviously their sense of ownership will be higher than someone turning up for a week in summer, and obviously they will feel put out if those people cause them inconvenience. The problem isn't about being territorial about the place you live, that's human nature, its more about who gets to live there. And unfortunately when it comes to beautiful and desirable places its the wealthy that get the monopoly, and the only way the less wealthy can get to experience them is to turn up for a week in summer and upset the residents.

My country thrives on tourism . For the most part we embrace and welcome people as it is not in our nature to be churlish. I live near a beach and on a sunny weekend cars park in our estate. But these are people wanting to enjoy a day out and it is nice to share this . No harm done , a little inconvenience.
As regards housing, in some areas you have to prove a local connection to build on land . Low income housing the same ie family , job in the area .

I know I am lucky to live like this . During lockdown I really felt sorry for families in flats with no outdoor space .

Don't understand why people are so negative about visitors . Whatever happened to Be Kind ?

I don’t think most want to restrict it but they’re just very over how little infrastructure is invested in and how badly a small group of people behave.
i live in the highlands on the nc500, which has a lot of locals angry, But a lot of the roads aren’t build for huge amounts of people and caravans, there’s no investment to do anything about it. I’ve also seen so much human shit, from people dumping their chemical toilets in fields to actually just taking dumps on the side of the road, lovely. Anders Povlsen makes money off the nc500 without investing back into the roads, more community toilets, education in terms of don’t shit on the side of the road, I can see why people are over it.

I've been in your position, OP, and I do find the accident of birth superiority frustrating. It isn't my fault my parents moved me around as a child and I didn't get to have roots in one location, and I don't see why just happening to be born somewhere gives you some sort of first dibs. Having said all that, moving somewhere and becoming part of the community is different to what I think is the real issue driving prices up. Second homes. If you want to live somewhere, live there. Don't just turn up for two weeks in summer and leave an empty house. Having 50% empty houses in winter is destructive. Shops and pubs close, leaving residents with few amenities because the population is just too small to be viable.
Tourism can be frustrating when locals feel neglected. When all the money is spent on stuff to bring in tourists in summer, leaving no budget for needed facilities for those that live there. That isn't the fault of the tourists and they shouldn't be blamed for it.
And to be fair, locals must take a bit of responsibility for the 'second home' problem, as somebody must have sold that house in the first place, and some locals definitely have cashed in on this and Airbnb, all reducing the availability of cheap housing.
It's a difficult one. I can see both sides, TBF.

I agree with you 100%

And i also will never forget the attitudes of some people who lived in attractive places during Covid.

We’re trying to relocate to one of these ‘beautiful’ parts of the UK and keep hitting the stumbling block of local occupancy clauses. Employers need to encourage more workforce there, hence a hefty relocation package comes with, but it’s still incredibly difficult to do - to a point where it’s just a bit silly.

It’s one way locals can ‘protect’ an area I suppose but in reality, a local who has lived or worked there for 3 years could buy a house and make it a holiday let, whereas we want to build our future there.

You only have to stray slightly in these beauty spots to see how deprived some of the surrounding areas are. They can resent tourism all they like, but it’s one of the only reasons those beauty spots aren’t deprived themselves…

It's a tricky one. My family moved to a tourist hotspot about 14 years ago. They see it from both perspectives.

The tourists bring a much needed influx of cash and they say it's nice to have the mix of multiculturalism (most locals are white).

It's tricky to find seasonal workers because most of them can't afford lodgings, unless the job includes somewhere to live.

The average wage for the town is incredibly low, and most people on normal salaries can't afford to buy. It's almost impossible to rent anywhere on a long term basis, as there's more money in short term lets.

Go 2 miles down the road and it's one of the most economically deprived areas in the country.

If you sell houses at a subsidised rate

1. who makes up the difference in market rate? (unless the councils build new houses specifically for this purpose)
2. how do you stop the locals buying the properties and then selling them on at vastly inflated prices to the second home owners?

The - maybe oversimplidied - answer IMO is for the council to invest in building council houses, which are only rented to locals and the rent is subsidised. Lots of people can't afford to buy all over the country, but I think the difference is that, in tourist hotspots, people would far rather make the money off weekly lets than year long tenancies.

The council houses would have to be regularly checked to ensure the people on the tenancy were living in them, not renting them out, as has happened!

I don't know how you get around the ebb and flow of tourism. Where my family live, it's pretty lively all year round as a tourist destination, so you don't get a feel of a ghost town like I know some places have. I can see how that would be depressing and frustrating for locals.

At the end of the day, market forces determine our decisions - we are a capitalist society, whether we like it or not.

I think that beautiful places should be for everyone to enjoy, but those who come have a responsibility to be mindful that some people live there year round, and that they support the local economy (independent shops) where possible.

I can fully see the point the Cornish make regarding tourists and by proxy, those who live in other areas which attract high levels of tourists.

I see the virtues in restricting housing and wish it was a nationwide policy to protect people from education tourists too.