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

I hear you, and I'm not blaming anyone for anything other than when people don't seem to have any empathy for families wanting to stay close to their roots whether they're in Lambeth, Yorkshire or the Isle of Skye. Oh and the people who buy holiday lets and leave them empty too!

"Part of the heritage of London is its cosmopolitanism and mixing of cultures" also while this is true - and we love the multiculturalism here it doesn't take away from the fact that just as many people (or more actually since there are more Londoners) who have just as strong family connections here as people in small villages. My dad's family come from Lambeth for at least 6 generations - maybe longer but I just don't know. But there is absolutely no way my kids will afford to live there. Me and DH have managed to buy somewhere but have had to go out to the suburbs and zone 5. I'm not blaming the people who move here btw. Just saying I think people elsewhere should stop blaming the Londoners! (Unless of course those Londoners are buying holiday let's that sit empty for 50 weeks a year. In that case go ahead and blame them all you like!)

Right. But I said I understand the point about holiday let's. It's people complaining about Londoners moving into an area I can't stand. Where are we meant to go if we can't afford to live locally either? Most os us would also like to be able to live near our families

Well a major problem in London is not so much people moving there but rather massive global investment firms buying up tracts of housing and then leaving it empty or raising the rents so as to extract maximum profit. Part of the heritage of London is its cosmopolitanism and mixing of cultures - so it's rather different than a small village that loses its core services such as schools due to people treating it as just somewhere to holiday rather than a sustainable community.

I want to go back to the OP's seeming lack of empathy for people who feel attached to the place they were born and grew up and who is often a deep sense of home. This is a global problem, sometimes due to war and aggression, but also due to capitalism. I think it does need to be properly managed, and while she might think that the locals she talks about are in the wrong or have expressed themselves clumsily it's very understandable for people who have deep roots in a particular place to feel frustrated or upset when they feel excluded from that very place. It's natural to be upset when a sense of belonging is disrupted by forces beyond your control, and for some people that belonging means a deep connection to where they and their families have lived all their lives.

Something to consider in terms of discussions of loss of identity and heritage is non-tangible heritage (as recognised by UNESCO). Just as certain buildings and landscapes are environmentally protected, so too in some countries are certain ways of life or linguistic communities. This is in recognition that they represent a common good that once lost is usually lost forever. Unimpeded global capitalism and consumerism doesn't 'care' about specificity, history and identity and yet every year indigenous languages are lost and people are unable to stay in their home places. There has to be a balance between isolation / xenophobia / NIMBYISM and then the ability to stay attached to place and the sustaining of local cultures.

Tourism is a bit of a monster that eats itself when unmanaged. In many countries, governments look to encourage the development of more long-term industries and businesses in particular areas so as to have a more sustainable economy. In Ireland, Gaeltacht (Irish-speaking areas) have been decimated by second home owners and air b n b businesses. This involves massive linguistic and cultural loss, and once it's gone it's extremely hard to get it back.

Ugh I hate this attitude as well. I totally understand why people resent the second homes. But everyone seems to have a problem with people from London in particular moving to their area. Maybe have a think about why that happens. It's because Londoners can't bloody afford to buy in London because people from every single part of the UK and also from other countries move to London (where they are very welcome BTW - we're mostly immigrants here!) but that does mean us Londoners can't afford to buy (or even rent a lot of the time) and end up moving into other areas, where people all resent us!!

This happens in Cornwall now.

Nobody wants people not to visit Skye, ever. But too many tourists is a HUGE problem. The tourist tax will help a bit but will only cover people staying overnight on the island. Personally I'd prefer to see a £50 tax on each non-resident vehicle crossing the bridge

Not quite the same but where I grew up the parking charges went up after Easter and reduced after October half term. Locals could get a season ticket, and also got free entry to some of the local attractions. And this was back in the 1980s.

Re older people retiring to these kinds of areas: they are not breaking any laws, nor should they be, but there should be some sort of government information campaign directed at ensuring that people are at least making a fully informed decision

It's very silly for elderly people to move somewhere without decent public transport.

And some areas are really struggling with their healthcare. It's not exactly good anywhere in the UK, but it's definitely less bad in some areas than others. But it's not helpful when "everyone" wants to retire to Torquay or Worthing.

Agree with this, I’m not a Londoner but lived for the longest I’ve ever lived anywhere and most ‘Londoners’ aren’t actually from London at all, people who move out from London either get priced out or move back to where their families live. London is made up of people moving there for work so anyone moaning about people ‘down from London or ‘Up from London’ are targeting them for the sake of it. I feel sorry for born and bred Londoners as they nearly all have to move out of London.

One thing that would avoid the need for "everyone" to live in the south-east for work would be more remote working.

If you say someone only has to come into a London office once a week or once a fortnight or once a month, they can live a lot further away. That spreads the load across the country. Obviously lots of jobs have to be done on-site, but many don't. There are also advantages to employers of having a wider geographical pool to select from. Win win.

Obviously you need decent broadband everywhere for this to work.

Neither is the attitude the OP describes, of wanting to restrict outsiders' ability to live in and visit their area and also state subsidies to fund the local people's way of life.

I've noticed it in Bakewell. One of the most-visited places in the Peak District, hoaching with tourists, but many pubs etc opening or serving food only on a few days a week and/or on reduced hours because of staffing issues.

Young people don't generally want to stay in seaside towns where there is little opportunity though. Moving away is a rite of passage. Different areas will inevitably attract different demographics - 20-somethings will gravitate to 'hipster' parts of cities; 30-somethings may become a bit more surburban when they have kids and then retired people may head for more remote coastal areas or remote, scenic places generally. Affordable housing won't encourage young people to stay in coastal areas if the job opportunities and social scene are limited.

This is completely true, but someone 'detesting' the fact that some people are having a bit of an existential crisis as they see their families unable to live in their home place is not the road to social cohesion.

You don't only get cohesive high-trust communities in remote areas or those where only members of the same fairly few families have lived there for generations.

One of the key issues is that we expect society to pick up more and more care functions to save the state and local authorities money, be that supporting children with childcare of grandchildren or supporting elderly parents. We can't do this if young or lower paid local people are priced out of their local areas, and have to move somewhere where there is no social safety net for them.

But foreigners do not pay to subsidise Singaporeans to live in Singapore
Of course they do - they pay higher taxes which are used to support the excellent public housing, health and education systems (which are not available to foreigners).
I don't get why you're so unempathetic to people wanting to live where they grew up - these places aren't just a theme park but home for people and their families for generations. It's very strange to just ignore that and think it's all about physical beauty.

I was literally thinking that. It makes no sense you can’t expect the locals to go against their best interests, but you should outsiders who should save the locals from themselves. That’s a whole new level of entitlement.

As for people selling to the highest bidder - you can't expect people to act against their best interests

If that goes for locals, it also goes for outsiders

Re older people retiring to these kinds of areas: they are not breaking any laws, nor should they be, but there should be some sort of government information campaign directed at ensuring that people are at least making a fully informed decision.

We don't know how well self driving cars are going to go, and self-driving cars do not, in any case, do very much to reduce the big problem of tiny towns and seaside/rural areas, which is that it is inherently very hard and expensive to provide services there, and old people consume lots of services. As populations age, anything non-statutory is going to get slashed, so in some areas things like bus services may start disappearing. It may be very hard to bring in people to provide household help and gardening help to older people when they start to struggle, so anyone without a family network in these areas may end up in serious difficulties.

Make it easier to build purpose-built holiday homes in nice places.

Build hotels, and look into hotel facilities which encourage year-round tourism (spa stuff, for example) regardless of weather, to avoid dramatic ups and downs in tourist numbers

Build more housing for locals. If there is concern about "There's no space!" have discussions about denser housing, to avoid encroaching on green fields and forests.

Increase the supply of nice places by making more towns and cities nicer (greenifying, pedestrianization schemes etc.)

Make tourists pay tourist taxes - reasonably fat ones, too, not just a few quid.

Consider running tourist buses and restricting cars firmly in areas that get overrun with cars in the summer, like Skye.

Allow two-tier pricing if desired by locals (however, it would help if the UK had a proper ID card system)

In local areas, there need to be clear and tough discussions about tradeoffs. Fewer tourists mean less money. Replacing tourists with "incomers who are long-term residents" may just mean loads of elderly people moving into "quaint" areas, using up tons of expensive services and clogging up the GP. Refusing to allow any building will mean a local housing crisis. Building more housing for both locals and newcomers involves the tradeoff of "sprawl vs tall" - either you need to accept more building on new land (sometimes green sites), or you will need to accept some taller and denser housing. I saw someone pouting about "zip lines" earlier on and saying "Why can't people just enjoy the area as it is already?" - but a zip line facility is the perfect example of the sort of thing that will attract people at other times of the year; if all you've got is a beach or whatever, you will end up empty at non-summer times of year, meaning there is more pressure to allow unrestricted numbers during the UK's very brief summer. I'm sensitive to the difficulties currently faced by people in these areas, but I also think it's only fair to point out that locals in these areas can sometimes be their own worst enemies, and demand "Santa wishlists" rather than policies - wanting tourism money without tourists, wanting housing but getting angry when anything has to be built, refusing to allow the building of tall buildings but not wanting green fields touched either, trying to block the development of leisure facilities that might make an area popular year-round, and then getting upset that "this place empties out in the summer and is like a ghost town."

Agree. And like someone upthread said, who's going to work in the cafés and shops and things if no one local can afford to live there?

Just read the school one, it is sad.

Sad that there is no doctor’s surgery, bank or post office for the locals either.

I hope the second homers enjoy their ghost town village.

OP, you’re being disingenuous with your made up problem that there are only sink estates and places of outstanding natural beauty to choose to live in, with no options in between.

In reality there’s a vast swathe of options in between. And if you can afford to buy in places of outstanding beauty then you’re not short of a few bob.

Having said that, wherever you buy or visit, don’t let the locals ruin it for you. As you say, they don’t own the area. Respect is two ways, both parties have to give it.