Are second homes and short-term rental properties immoral?

[maranella]

We have a huge shortage of housing in this country and there and more and more stories about seaside towns and pretty villages being hollowed out by homes that stand empty half the year.

So I'm just wondering how other people feel about second homes and ones bought specifically to be holiday rentals? I really feel for people in places like Cornwall, Devon, north Norfolk, parts of Wales and the Lake District, who can't find affordable homes in the towns and villages where they've always lived and worked.

A lot of people made a lot of money simply through being the right age for the property market in London (and usually starting out with at least a bit of an inheritance). They were able to take advantage of cheap borrowing and have made huge amounts of money, while renting their flats to key workers/next generation who may never be able to buy where they grew up due to inflated prices. Immoral is a strong word, but it's not great.

And other people got to grow up in a beautiful tourist area, despite having done nothing to deserve that. Yet others were lucky enough to live in London, and therefore to have friends and neighbours in too banks and law firms who could coach them in how to get jobs there.

There are myriad ways that people end up doing better or worse in little more than the throw if the dice. It’s hard to have much sympathy for those who had a childhood somewhere wonderful and now think that they have somehow inherited the right to stay there ahead of people who have the money and the desire to live there now.

I would absolutely love a second home. But yes I think it’s immoral.

Yes they are immoral. There's no reasonable justification for owning a second home when there is such a huge shortage of housing in the country and many people homeless, in hostels or hotels waiting for housing. Second homes should be massively taxed as a deterrent

Yes it is immoral. Tourism is a huge business, but it's seasonal, so whilst it does create jobs, they're often only in high season.
The area where I live is so so busy in summer, and is a ghost town in winter. Literally whole streets empty for 8 months of the year, whilst people have to move away for housing because folks buy a house to use for a few months.
I don't use holiday lets when I go away.

I think it is immoral to have a property you do not live in or let out. If you are letting people live there then no. Even holiday lets are something as people can enjoy them and spend money, helping the local area.

What do you use?

Surely like everything in life, there is a balance.

And second home owners wonder why they get a bad rap. So sad.

A home that is empty most of the time, yes. One that is a decent business, no. Everyone is trying to earn a living.

Who here has rented a holiday cottage? If you have you are part of the problem

I don’t wonder, I said I’m past caring. I’m not sad either. I think of things are immoral and I don’t do them. Other people are comfortable doing those things.

I think lots of things**

Adult children being priced out of staying near family when they want to live near them is a problem I think. The intergenerational help - childcare, medical appointments, care for elderly relatives - is much harder the further away you are, and there's the added loss of community, more loneliness, plus higher demand for care services that maybe a relative would have provided if distance hadn't made it impractical. And yes I know you can pay for childcare but only if your wage makes it viable.

@buddhasbelly our private sector businesses in my area exist here because they have to - fish farming, renewable energy, whisky production and associated farms for grain, forestry. A lot of the jobs in these sectors are low paid in comparison to the rest of the uk and in comparison to the rise in house prices in our area
No private business has to exist and it certainly doesn't have to exist in a specific location. Your local area may have natural advantages that mean that businesses have historically setup there but if the conditions are no longer right then the business will close. Look at mining etc. The same arguments about community etc exist and rage on even now but ultimately there are limits as to how much a country and the taxpayer is willing to prop up an industry. High levels of government intervention shouldn't be required to make a business viable.

The tourism sector would now need to pay £15/hr to make living here anywhere near affordable, costs will be past on to customers ie the tourists you speak of who just won’t pay (based on the many not wanting to pay for a campsite spot and instead defecate next to someone’s home and empty grey waste In the river)
Those who aren't paying for campsite spots aren't the ones using or owning second homes so are irrelevant. The ones actually shelling out to stay somewhere are most likely the ones spending their money locally. If like you say, the tourism sector can't afford to pay workers enough then the tourism businesses will close and the place will almost certainly be less attractive to holidaymakers, there therefore will be less demand for holiday lets and the pressure on housing eases. Not many people will want to go somewhere without any local attractions, restaurants or cafes.

It depends. We own two properties. One is our family home where we've lived for 20 years.
The other house we bought for a family member to live in, in an expensive area.
They had rented the house for 20 years and it was offered to us to buy by the owner, so our family member could stay there (they couldn't get a mortgage as retired.)
They've been in the house for 12 years now and will live there as long as they want. They can't afford rent, we don't make a profit, we pay for essential renovations.
If we hadn't bought the house, family member wouldn't be able to afford to live in their home town.

Just as it’s immoral to eat meat when people are starving, or to go on holiday when children in Africa are being blind from vitamin deficiency.

For some reason though many posters think nothing of having a meal out or a drink rather than saving lives abroad, but then come over all holier than thou when it comes to housing.

It’s a bit strange really, isn’t it?

@Dobbysgotthesocks
But we're not just talking private industry @Bumpitybumper! We're taking bin men, carers, nurses, teaching assistants! Essential workers are more often than not low paid workers. They need housing!! My bins haven't been collected on time for months! It's stick up out in bin day and leave them until they are collected sometimes days later.
Society doesn't work without a mix of income levels
I accept there is a need for key workers to run local infrastructure and services and mention this specifically in my post. I think there is an argument for some government intervention there to provide key worker housing.

I think lots of people conflate the key worker argument with the local people argument. I don't believe local people should be prioritised or given special rights just because they happen to have been born and raised somewhere. This would automatically disadvantage those who already had the misfortune of being born and raised in a less pleasant area and then find there are additional barriers to being able to move to/enjoy the nicer parts of the UK. Areas of beauty are a finite resource and it simply isn't acceptable or fair for some to lay a claim over the housing in these areas because they lived there first.

I own a second property, rental, don't feel remotely bad about it. I'm a single parent, no other second source of income. Do wonder if the stocks and shares option might have been better, though. Would like to see better regulation of whole rental sector, the scheme to rent out to people on benefits was abolished by our council, it was the type of thing that was socially beneficial and better for landlords- there's absolutely no incentive now to take any risks in the sector and with higher mortgage repayments and lots of other things to pay out, a lot of people are selling up (which theoretically would be great for local populations if they could meet the mortgage criteria which most can't).

If you never rent out holiday homes (inc Air B and B which are mainly purpose bought now, not a spare room) or use a friend's second home, then I think it's fine to take a moral stance.

Just to be clear, though, mine isn't a short-term rental, it's longer term, I allow at least 1-year lets to give stability to me and tenant, I have been in rental with a family myself for years and know how destabilising it is when you are on short-term rents. I have to say though that the last two tenants were happy to move on after 6 months, seemingly no issues with the property but they split up with partner, the other moved to their own bought property, so there is a market for 6 month rentals for sure.

Being able to see or visit an area of beauty isn't a basic human right or need. Housing is.

Mass tourism is an absolute plague and the destruction of housing stock is only one symptom. We really need to get away from this idea that we must all have one or more holidays away from home every single year. It's not sustainable in so many ways.

This is a part of a system, therefore no more or less immoral than any other choice.
Is it immoral for parents that separate to occupy two homes instead of one, therefore taking up more space, or are elderly people who carry on living in their large home immoral?

Surely many of the second homes were sold by locals that wanted to sell because the prices were so high.

I don't think they are immoral - that's a strong word. Not great given a housing crisis but it's not as simple as banning them - then you drive tourists away.

I also don't believe you gave a god given right to buy a property where you were born. My sister still lives at home, property prices have increased loads where my parents live - it's a commuter town with a newish fast line. She now will not be able to afford to live there and will have to move out. It is just life.

@Bumpitybumper but a fall in demand for tourist lets and perhaps selling off of 2nd homes won’t matter a jot as prices have now been raised substantially for demand in these areas.

businesses very much do have to exist in specific locations. Would be quite difficult to have forestry business without trees..:

I agree about the grey waste though, that was a poor example. A survey was recently done on our area in terms of tourist spend whilst here and it’s down. Would speculate the fuel costs to get here and around. Tourists are spending less so the continued argument that they bring in so much to the economy gets a bit tired. We could expand other industries but there’s no housing for workers.

Exactly. The Greenies don’t want anyone to fly on holiday either so where are people supposed to go?