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?

One last question. If there are no holiday lets, where do all the tourists these areas need stay?

Mostly empty second homes is one issue, but holiday lets?

5 years is often the restriction/benefits on things.
£1 houses
Permanent residency
Citizenship etc
Help to buy sales
I think it's just used on everything because maybe that's the time when you finally settle and feel local? Also maybe expected time for community to build and merge?

So to be clear, what you are all saying is that we can only live and work in the community we were born into? That's madness! My children's prospects in life will be limited to a 50 mile radius of where we live now? Nobody 'owns' Cornwall or any part of the country FFS. Twas ever thus. You live where you can afford to live. You don't artificially deflate house prices for the 'locals'.

In hotels, in caravans, in tents, in bed and breakfasts...

👆this

All of my friends from across Africa are Christian/Catholic. They've now been here over five years so would qualify anyway. My Dad (from SA) was Presbyterian, so would come under Christianity. It's probably the ethic minorities who are keeping the Churches open. A seven day African Adventist group bought a local Church which the council tried to flatten for (not needed) housing. Other African groups have saved a lot of Christian Churches. There's a seperate issue of people from parts of the world with excess amounts of money who can easily be the highest bidders. People from Saudi have bought piers, then banned fishing and dogs, which shouldn't have been allowed. Likewise we now know how much property Russian money has bought. There's good reasons to have these rules and it isn't to just (let's be honest about what you were implying) to keep the Muslim's out.

Hotels?
You don't need a farmhouse cottage or town house if you're only there for the week

Also these restrictions are Europe wide, unless the village is dying because of a lack of interest.

Most (Over 50%) of Dartmoor residents do describe themselves as Christian at the last census. Which is a lot higher than the national population....

Of course, but if the only holiday makers were those staying in hotels there'd be a huge reduction in the local economy.

They wouldn't qualify in Dartmoor

Not a fan of restrictions like this at all tbh. Restrictions that it can only be a primary home, fine.

If you reserve homes for local people, whether thats on Dartmoor, in London, or anywhere else "desirable", you're basically saying that anyone who had the misfortune to grow up in a less nice area should know their place and stay there. Or maybe if they're lucky they can compete for one of the now even more expensive "open" properties. Isn't that lovely!

. As it happens of the 2373 people living on Dartmoor, 2300 are white, 12 Asian, 16 Black.

Fucking hell.

I would also dispute that tourism is what these areas "need".

What they need is a year-round community where their shops don't shut in the winter and which don't just cater to tourists, selling overpriced clothes and ice-cream. They need doctors and dentists and schools and vets. Those can't survive in an area without a permanent resident base. They need to be able to move about and transport goods and produce without being restricted by huge crowds of tourists between April and September. They need decent community hubs like pubs and bars which are open all year round. They need long term accomodation which means they can work and contribute to the local economy.

Mass tourism is a scourge. A drug which you get reliant on but which destroys you.

It's not about them being white, it's about ensuring local people are not priced out of the market.

This.

And quite frankly, London needs it as well. My grandparents were ordinary middle-class professionals and owned a whole house in South Ken (in a nice street even!) from the 1950s through to their deaths in the late 1970s.

No middle-class family could afford that nowadays.

But that's tough shit. Sorry, but it is. I don't live where I grew up because I can't afford to. Fully support a primary residence requirement but anything beyond that is just madness.

So we want a system where there's no social mobility at all. Where you're born is where you end up?

It's OK if you're born somewhere lovely I suppose?

No. Read again. If you want to go and live in a new area you can buy a house that doesn't have a local residents restriction or you can get a job and rent and after five years of living and working in the area and contributing to the community you qualify for cheaper properties for locals.

I have a friend who is high up in the Cornwall NHS. They are losing local staff because those staff can't afford to live in Cornwall because of the lack of affordable property caused by people buying up houses for holiday homes. Cornish nurses are heading to cheaper parts of the UK where they can afford to buy on their salaries.

And certainly what these communities don't need is a bunch of people like the OP to come in and start stirring up division and spouting vitriol against them!

No it isn't racist. Think harder.

This. 100%.

Local restrictions are there for the reason that local yes local people can get a local chance to work in their area.
It's not just Dartmoor, it's not Tubs and Edward though it sounds that way.
Shortage of housing. Local people doing normal jobs need a teeny tiny head start wherever that can be implemented.
It doesn't usually mean jack though because there aren't enough local houses for local people.

I'm south of Dartmoor and it's a great holiday destination but nowhere for the cleaners, the waitresses, the service industry employees to live.

What does going to Dartmoor have to do with social mobility. The OP allegedly lives in London!

No. You read again. A primary residence clause would deal with holiday homes. Why can't someone move from London to Cornwall to be a nurse and own their own home?!

Why would only white people qualify?