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?

The OP states in the OP that they qualify under the five year rule. ie she already lives locally.

To call this racism is very wide of the mark. It is really unfair to imply that these communities are somehow backward and unenlightened because they don't have the ethnic diversity of larger cities. We shouldn't just sneer because they happen to be white and possibly christian. And striving for diversity for diversities sake serves no purpose other than to tick a box.

At first glance it does look a bit like a 'local houses for local people' insular thing. But people forget that these areas are not Disney World. They're not on this earth for peoples amusement and entertainment. People have real lives and need to work, educate their children, procure food and so on. If certain places are beautiful, people may like to visit, and industries grow up around that, but sometimes that needs to be tempered slightly to keep 'real life' thriving.

Ideally, we should avoid interventions in the open market, but in this case, I think a proportion of properties having selling restrictions is sensible. I would like to see a limit/waiting list for holiday lets and second homes too where there are particular problems.

You are allowed to discriminate in certain circumstances. Such as, for example, discriminating against children when it comes to religious schools.

It might be that this requirement could be indirectly racist but if there is enough justification, it will be accepted.

You could say the same about a Welsh language requirement for jobs in Wales, but it can be got around by learning Welsh.

The requirement is not just to stop second home ownership, it's to stop non-locals buying up housing stock at the expense of locals.

Jersey has had a requirement like this for decades, and it's much more draconian.

Apparently the absolute worst thing you can be on MN is middle class. Christ, the spitting venom.

There's nothing wrong with being middle class. There is something a bit wrong with being middle class and advocating for policies that will make people poorer than you worse off purely so you can get in a bit of virtue signalling.

Stamp duty is not a formal election and says nothing about which property your primary residence will be or the purpose for which you are buying the additional property.

The only declaration you would make to HMRC about a principal residence would be in the context of PPR relief, which must be made within two years of the date when the combination of properties you own changes. For practical purposes, this will usually be up to two years after you buy a second property.

Any popular destination in the global south is a testament to this. absolute scourge on economic growth all reliant on outside money and whims.

Stops the development of any useful local infrastructures

No one's saying that. If you have a job offer in an area you should be able to access affordable housing no? Restrictions such as local connection offers ensures essential workers can move into an area

To call this racism is very wide of the mark. It is really unfair to imply that these communities are somehow backward and unenlightened because they don't have the ethnic diversity of larger cities. We shouldn't just sneer because they happen to be white and possibly christian. And striving for diversity for diversities sake serves no purpose other than to tick a box.

I agree here. Frankly, there is no way to have census represantation of minorities equally spread into every postcode. It's just not possible.
How would that be done?
We would get to do rock paper scissors with other minority fellows over who get to stay in higher minority populated area and who gets moved to arse end of knowhere with 5 houses and 2m2 corner shop where only spice is black pepper? (Before anyone starts, this is not anti Brotish, these arses with this shop are in every country😁)

"Oi, Mo, there is 6% muslims in UK, but where you live it's actually 11% so we need you to move few hundred miles up to village where it's 1.5% so we can balance the areas. Your wife Anna can't though because because it's 1.3% of Polish in UK and your new village has 3% so we will swap you for some polish lad for her, is that ok?"

A price cap would surely be better. To stop greedy locals profiting from the money of wealthy Londoners?

I have zero desire to leave London for the sticks and never will. I like Cornwall for holidays but the behaviour of those in SW villages towards those wanting an escape during the pandemic was quite the eye-opener so I won’t go again.

But I am uncomfortable with restriction of movement. Especially for those being priced out of cities. Not sure where they will be allowed to buy. This will end up with villages staying mainly white and cities being diverse. Maybe everyone is ok with that.

A nurse will earn the same wherever they come from. What you are saying is you don't want anyone from outside the area even if they are working and contributing to the local economy.

That is a very different proposition from restricting holiday lets.

If a local person buys can it be second home and are they allowed to Air B&B/holiday cottage?

That isn't what a lot of posters are saying and isn't the situation the OP describes where you need five years of previous continuous residence. That would preclude people working and living in the area unless they come from the right gene pool.

Do you not think they'd figure out quite quickly that they'd been shopped by the neighbours? How many threads have you read on Mumsnet where people have been querying whether they should report something and the thread is just full of people telling them to keep out of it, to mind their own business etc.
People have to be majorly inconvenienced by something before they will report it. The majority of people will join moan about nothing being done rather than being proactive.

If the neighbours are never there it wouldn't matter? 😆

The same thing is happening in every inner city borough in working class & ethnic minority communities of London. not single bit of protection there, just greedy local council taking backhanders from developers

The posters complaining on this thread are from other areas and think they should be able to ride roughshod over rural planning and housing because they've decided they might like to live in the country. 🙄
Could a member of a minority group challenge the restriction as it pertains to them? Possibly. Can people who simply think they'd like a second home in the country or a commuter base? Nope.

The same thing is happening in every inner city borough in working class & ethnic minority communities of London. not single bit of protection there, just greedy local council taking backhanders from developers

That sounds like a problem for the voters in those communities to solve, not a reason to prevent more proactive communities from acting to prevent the slow death of rural and village life.

I can't think of anything worse than living somewhere like this, even part-time. I'm London born and bred (and when I die I'll be London dead 😉) I've never learned to drive, I need 24-hour shops within walking distance, and I am miserable without the buzz of millions of different people around me and loads of culture. I don't like mud or cold or dark. Oh, and I'm not White.

But of course racism plays a part. I can't imagine wanting to live somewhere as one of the less than 30 people out of 1200 who isn't White, and especially so if I'd taken the local authority to court for the right to live there!

I live quite near there. None of our youth can afford to live anywhere near where they grew up because property's so expensive and jobs so badly paid, if there are jobs.

I don't know anyone who thinks restrictions on who to sell to is a bad idea - far too many idiots movein, complain about the church bells which have been rung like 'this' or 'that' since time immemorial and waste everyone's time and money trying to get them stopped.... complaining about god knows what etc.

I know many people don't want to do that, and many incomers don't, of course. But the problem is bad enough that combined with the problems brought about by second home owners and the major problem of not enough housing for our youth, that I know no one local who doesn't heartily approve of restricted selling.

Sorry.

Try something outside the Park. Make yourselves into welcome locals, people who support the local community and way of life. Then try for something more like what you're after in 10-20 years. That's about the pace we do things in out here.

In Wales it is tacitly understood that those Welsh-language requirements discriminate not only against non-White people, but also against working-class White people in South Wales where the majority of the population live, and Welsh-language is overwhelmingly a middle-class hobby, as opposed to North and West Wales, where many people actually speak it as a first language.

The Welsh-language requirement has made it quite easy for university graduates to keep all the best jobs while young people from the Valleys live their whole lives unemployed or on sickness benefits.

On Jersey it's 5 years unless you're a high net worth individual. They don't even try and pretend it's not just about keeping the riff raff out 😆

No it wouldn't because these restrictions only apply to a tiny minority of houses.

Developers and second homers and commuters would love to rip up rural housing rules for their own selfish reasons.
But when there are no restrictions, you're left with London - locals priced out; dying high streets; the property market flooded with international investors, oligarchs and gangsters who snap up properties then leave them vacant whilst the homeless sleep on the streets and workers are forced into long commutes. Rather than complaining about rural restrictions, it might be better to campaign for cities to take their housing and infrastructure obligations seriously.

I see OP's point. It isn't racism in intention, but it has disproportionate effect on different groups. Not based on biological characteristics, but based on social characteristics.

Let's say that the area which comes with this setup is above average percentage of homeowners area, and less long-term renters area.
Let's say that white British people has higher than average proportion of home ownership.

Such protection makes property ownership more available for people (directly or through their parents) from group which already owns more (both there and more in general). It protects (among others) from competition from people who live in renters' areas (renting themselves or being children of renters).

If someone tried the same with jobs (not enough jobs, so let's artificially restrict on people similar to those already in, mostly their offsprings) it won't be fair either.

It's not just Dartmoor, it happens in many other areas, and types of housing, whether it be social housing, new builds or developments or slightly older properties.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/can-access-to-housing-be-restricted-to-local-people/