Local Persons restriction seem a bit racist? Or am I overthinking?

[dartmoorgirl12]

We're house hunting on Dartmoor (clue's in the name!) at the moment, and we've seen a house with a Local Persons restriction on it. You have to live or work in the local or neighbouring parish for the previous five years. We actually qualify, but it got me thinking... Isn't it a bit weird that the "protected" group here are extremely likely to be white/broadly Christian. It just seems really exclusive for 2023. I do understand the idea that local communities should be protected, and that there is absolutely toxic housing pressure in Dartmoor at the moment. But ironically I live down here now because we got royally outpriced in the bit of London I grew up in. And there def doesn't seem to be any move to have Local Persons protections on various parts of London, which have been rapidly gentrified in recent times. I just thought it was interesting. Why is it that this group of white people get protected in this way?

This is v much just my personal experience, but all the pagan types I know around here are v much incomers!

Immigration has not displaced Londoners by putting up housing prices. The availability of high paid jobs in the city has pushed up prices, as has the sale of huge swathes of property to non resident investors.

Paganism is reported under "other" in the census. In the 2021 census, Dartmoor had 44 people who reported "other".

So you would rather nobody got the 20% discount then?

No, but I'd expect that the group that got the discount to reflect the diversity across the UK, and that's palpably not the case here. This is quite clearly designed to consolidate and reinforce the status quo, which is substantially less diverse than the rest of the country.

@dartmoorgirl12 couldn't quote sorry. Yes maybe the case now, when I knew people there it was 15 years ago so all might of changed. I know the actual land history is pagan (stone circles monuments) so perhaps over years it's been taken over. (Hope that doesn't sound bad saying) but in old old days it was meant to be sacred pagan land through the historic artefacts. But as modern days changes it may all of changed. If that's the case then I don't get the criteria to live there, I don't see how being in an area 5 years suddenly makes you local. I do if like with housing you need ties to an area like family. But tbf I think they should more cater to what the area needs, ie someone moving down who works in conservation, it would be madness to turn them away. Frustrating, I would love to live there but sounds like I would never meet the criteria haha x

Everyone who knows about the restrictions realises they only apply to certain areas and certain properties.
Yet again, it's posters pretending they care and trying to cause fights, who are deliberately creating strawmen ... or maybe some other kind of men because I get the impression they're not in rural environments enough to have any straw.

If all communities across the UK suddenly became 'protected' for locals only it would be disastrous for the socio-economy. I come from a town which is known as "retirement by the sea". Very popular with tourists and those wanting to escape cities. There's no hospital, no university, very little diversity, a lot of racists and so on. If you wanted to go to university you had to leave. The vast majority of those who left never came back. My mind was literally blown when I left and I met people of different colours, religions, backgrounds etc. I can't think of anything worse than having to stay there and subject the next generations! And I say that as someone who will never be able to get on the property ladder anywhere.

And still the OP is disgusted that people native to a particular country might form the majority of the population of said country. I lived in Spain for five years because of work and, shock, horror most people I met there were Spanish! Was that a bad thing? if so, why?

There have been houses with agricultural ties on them for a long time now. It’s to ensure that farmworkers can afford to live and raise their families near the land on which they work. What’s wrong with that? Yes, I might like a well priced country cottage for myself, but I’d be no use around a tractor, or a herd of Christians, sorry, I mean cows 🐄🤣

If you want more dynamism and opportunities in the local economy then part of that is more movement. What fascinates me in so many of these areas is that failure to see the connection between a thriving community and movement of people both in and out

As I said in one of my other posts, for me, it's about new housing. Anything that is newly built (especially if on green field land) should be for local people, or those who are taking up key worker-type roles. I am not advocating a complete ban on sales to people from outside an area or county, just restrictions on new builds to try to attract the sort of buyers that will contribute to the area.

Also a local person restriction prevents people buying as second homes and holiday lets as well, so it's a win win.

I also read today that the Balearic Islands want to stop foreigners buying up all their houses as there are 60,000 foreigners there.
Are they racist, or are they just trying to protect their housing stock for the existing community?

They just don't understand the dynamism of having a large proportion of homes idle for most of the year and people who would live in them having to move away.

Disclaimer : I'm not british.

That's probably a matter of cultural difference but I find bizarre the idea that a family should have the "protected right" to live in one given place at certain prices, generation after generation. Tbh I find it bizarre to even want that.

If the holiday homes are such an issue they could always be taxed and the money used for the betterment of the community, I suppose. Or there could be quotas of how many holiday homes are allowed (I assume people have to declare their primary résidence for tax purposes so should be easy enough to check). I'll admit I find it odd to buy a home to stay there a few weeks a year anyway, it far easier and more efficient to rent, I'd sooner buy to let personally.

That kind of planning management to attract and support a mixed local community is in the gift of the local authorities. So typically that would be a mix of 2/3 and some 4 bed units including some low rise apartments and some social housing. On larger developments it should include ammenity accommodation for a nursery, clinic etc.

In the areas I know best, where I have family, the elected authorities have almost without exception approved developments (sometimes of several hundred houses) which are mostly 4/5 bed detached, some 3 bed detached, no accommodation for amenities and minimal "affordable". The price of affordable is skewed by the estate being built as upper end of the market.

That elected authority is dominated by the local business/land owners and unsurprisingly their interests are well represented. They would need to be caught buggering sheep on TV before anyone else got a sniff of a vote because the voting is so tribal. The same cohort blocks moves to increase council tax on second homes, restriction on holiday lets etc.
But still the blame for the housing problems is all ascribed to rich outsiders from London (although in fact most of the incomers to that area are from the midlands and working). And of course the movement of young people away from the area was common long before house prices went up.

The basic premise of restricting house sales and purchase in some parts of the country I agree with. As one of a number of measures to reduce low occupancy (or almost nil occupancy) of property, a way of increasing the availability of housing.

Five years in an area not unreasonable, providing there are limited exceptions to this for say those working in the NHS and some other key workers, with a sell-on restriction clause.

I'd ban second homes in many areas. Perhaps also to set an example, no second home allowance for MPs.

I am all for the protection, not sure whether it can be counted as racist...more that it excludes those of us who are poor and from other areas (as well as its targeted wealthy second home owners), which would include a lot of people from ethnic minorities.

I find it upsetting that we don't have similar in London, especially since council and housing association homes are no longer passed on to our children. The result is so many adult children in London either living in cramped council homes with their parents, or having to leave London. So many communities breaking up. At the same time, we',be longed to move to near family in Wales or Dartmoor for decades, but can't afford it.

No, anyone moving into an area can rent like anyone else does. Or rather, like anyone else could if so many places weren't second homes or air BnB let's!

Yeah this is spot on!

It more than likely does indirectly discriminate

Then schools, hospitals, care homes and other employers will struggle to get the qualified staff they need when neighbouring areas are offering jobs which don't punish good applicants by forcing them off the housing ladder as a precondition of employment.

Every area needs movement in and out, not just a preserved gene pool which will lose some of its most capable youngsters as they move for opportunities irrespective of housing costs.

The issue of second homes and holiday lets is managed better in some areas than others if people vote for effective local authorities. If your local authority isn't doing this then maybe campaign and vote for another one next time which will focus on this rather than simply making it more difficult for potential new skills and economic contributors to join the area.

Ironically, I wonder if some of the local young people don't move away partly because they're frustrated by this sort of insular policy-making (note - not saying that the people are insular, just that this policy is). Also, we don't get to vote on the DNPA - we just get landed with them. Believe me, if there was a way of voting, no one would end up with the current lot.

Yes, indirect indiscrimination - that's exactly what I think it is...

It isn’t protecting a group of white people or Christians. That’s disingenuous. It’s to ensure people who live and work locally have a chance of buying a house without being outbid by people no doubt more financially privileged. Even under the time restriction, you would still qualify regardless of race or where you moved from.

Nearly anything can be indirect discrimination if you think hard enough.

Isn't this restriction just on new builds btw? Not on all sales?

Don't be stupid.
Racist?
the world has gone mad.

Yes I think this could be a fair case for it for sure - CAB

This thread demonstrates how far we still need to come with critically evaluating our policies and procedures from a D&I perspective