As an accidental second home owner in Northumberland after MIL died (until we managed to sell it) I can categorically say that owning a second home is a PITA. The practicalities of dealing with a leaking roof, keeping heating on low over several lockdowns because we couldn’t visit, various other things that could (and did) go wrong, the expense of council tax, paying standing charges for electricity, annual boiler service, broadband etc make owning a second home far more expensive than staying in a hotel or B and B every now and again.
I completely agree with you - it makes no sense to me to go to all that hassle and expense for maybe a couple of weeks and three or four weekends a year at most. I suppose some people might be thinking long ahead and 'stealth-retiring' - considering the beautiful country home as their 'heart home', but having to live in the city for work and slowly spending more time at the country home, intending to retire there as soon as they can.
HOWEVER, people on here are clearly lumping in the holiday homes that are used as holiday lets, which I don't see is the same thing at all. Of course, the Summer is going to be busier than the rest of the year, but plenty of touristy places also do reasonably well from out-of-season and even Winter lets.
Yes, you get some tourists who will just get a Tesco delivery, but that's a nationwide problem: there are loads of places where people are resident, but they never use the local shops, as the supermarket is believed to be cheaper and more convenient. Are the people on here who live in Cornwall or other tourist hotspots honestly confirming that they only ever use local shops themselves and never or rarely go to the supermarket - or is it somehow different if locals ignore their own shops?
On balance, I'd have thought that people on holiday, with extra spending money, are much more likely to go to the local bakery or butcher than those with their regular weekly/monthly budget and having to fit their shopping in around their working time. Our favourite regular destination is in Norfolk and they effectively had a Tesco forced on them after years of campaigning (Tesco had far more money to fight than the council). We do use Tesco when we're at home, but we never ever go to the one in this town - primarily in solidarity with the locals, but also because, being on holiday, we have the time to go to the amazing local food shops, which run rings around a boring old standard supermarket.
They tolerate 'tourists' in caravan parks because they spend money and don't take our housing, even though it makes the summers over crowded and not much fun.
Why the inverted commas for tourists? It's very sad when you live somewhere beautiful and still resent others who are less lucky in where they're able to live normally wanting to share it - even though they bring money and trade in to the area and don't occupy any sites that would suit locals.
I know it's not quite the same thing, but that attitude reminds me of the sort who keep going on about 'all these immigrants coming in and taking our jobs' - especially when the jobs they do are limited seasonal things like fruit picking, which locals very seldom want to do and which don't provide a realistic full-time income anyway. Some times, people have valid concerns; sometimes, it does just seem to be pointless xenophobia/hatred/distrust of anybody who isn't you.
It does grate a little when you hear people constantly harping on about Cornwall surviving on tourism, as if that’s our only source of income down here. In fact, tourism contributes only 12% of Cornwall’s GDP, and I do wonder whether that makes up for the problems it causes.
How is that calculated, though? Is it purely based on direct income from holidaymaker activities or does it include money spent by tourists on non-touristy things (i.e. local food/everyday shops, cafes, pubs, petrol stations etc.) and the trickle-down money spent by locals whose income comes mainly/wholly from tourists? Genuine question?