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?

Absolutely this. But having read all of the OP’s posts, I see it’s not an issue she wants to address. It’s a very real issue (and OP, “key workers” aren’t the only ones priced out of an area. Those (many, many people), honestly working for a living but earning less than “key workers’ might also want homes to live in and resent being priced out of their local market by city commuters who artificially inflate their house prices).

It is just to ensure locals can afford to buy and the five year rule is a long enough period so people don’t move in snap up the housing. Anyone can buy if they meet the conditions
I live in a rural area in a restricted house, although not local occupancy and in an area with many houses with restrictions and it’s a good thing because recently house prices have risen so much it’s pricing local people out of the market. Where do people go when they can’t afford or find somewhere to live? If I hadn’t bought a restrictive property I would have uprooted everyone and inflicted the same problem on a poorer rural community further north. And then where do the local people there live?

Got to be an improvement on the current setup where social mobility is effectively going backwards - someone who in the past could have afforded a three bedroom townhouse but in this generation can only afford a studio flat.

It's one house, just one which has this covenant. The rest are available to the highest bidder.

Obviously when people moan about Londoners buying up property in Cornwall, they aren't thinking of an Afro-Caribbean single mother who rents a council flat in Hackney. No chance, she can't afford to buy anywhere - she's just as much a victim of the fucked-up housing market as someone born to a family originally from St Ives. The ones people are complaining about are invariably white, probably bought a house in London 30 years ago for peanuts and have found themselves millionaires without lifting a finger. Then they retire to somewhere pretty, complain about church bells, and wonder why the village school is closing when anyone of child-rearing age has been priced out by them.

How enforceable is it in reality?

There's nothing wrong with a community that is mainly ethnically white. Just like there is nothing wrong with a community that is mainly not ethnically white.

I think saying that community's historic racial distribution is problematic is quite racist, rather than the opposite.

The whole housing market on the island of Guernsey has this
The local market ( some houses are only ever local and some are only general market ) properties are cheaper. The general are v expensive.
Its so that locals are not priced out of the area.

It’s really hard to get affordable housing for local people in desirable areas with lower income levels and I really don’t think this is racist. It’s fair enough to me that a percentage of homes on new developments should be provided as slightly cheaper homes for people who have a local connection so they can’t be bought by people from higher income areas. If this house was provided under a S106 agreement the developer would have negotiated with the local authority re that percentage. The covenant would - rightly in my view - stay on the property even if it is resold.

This with bells on (not church bells 😆).

Why is everything deemed racist? I want safe, affordable housing for the black, single parent in London AND the white, working-class family in Paignton. Both areas of priority need, both families in need. Why is it always boiled down to the over simplistic nature of race?