To detest people that think they own beautiful parts of the world?

[Bumpitybumper]

I grew up in a very ugly and undesirable part of the country and now live in a tourist hotspot. I am becoming increasingly frustrated by people that are born and raised here trying to restrict tourism or stop 'outsiders' moving here. The houses are expensive here because it's such a lovely place to live but there isn't much employment except for from tourism. Despite this many locals that I know feel that tourism should be restricted as it makes the town extremely busy in high season. They also think housing should be subsidised for locals.

I feel that there are only so many beautiful places and those lucky enough to be born in them are no more entitled to live and enjoy them than the rest of us who by luck were born elsewhere. This would effectively condemn future people like me to live and visit only the less desirable of areas whilst my children could stay in this lovely area and be subsidised for doing so. It just feels incredibly unfair!

I agree! I grew up in and still live in the Lake District. People resent the tourists but there wouldn't be any jobs without them. Plus - no one owns an area and people have the right to travel and visit wherever they like.

I disagree. I think it’s entirely reasonable for people who were born and raised in a particular area to be able to buy or rent a property in that area, if that’s what they want to do. They may wish to be near family and friends. They may have work locally. They may simply want to stay where it’s familiar.

The bigger issue is that so many properties are second homes, or are holiday cottages of various types, some of which are empty for tranches of time.

If tourism is what keeps the economy going, then it’s churlish to want to curtail that though.

You can restrict it though. In the Netherlands for example some areas only allow the buying of a house below a certain value if you have a clear connection to the place, either a job or immediate family, sometimes both. It protects lower cost housing for people that grew up in these places and work there. We are not gatekeeping, we are protecting an old town from second home and holiday let destruction.

I also live in a touristy town and it can be frustrating trying to go about your day behind crowds that think they are in a themepark. People stand in the road taking selfies, knock on doors of private homes to 'look around', and my own peeve - insist on finding our small hidden bars to 'meet the locals' as though we are Disney characters. So yeah we'll smile at them and then call them areseholes.

Not all tourists, but enough of them.

Welcoming tourists needs to balance local needs. Anyone living in Amsterdam could tell you that.

But what about people that are born and raised in areas that are less desirable and want to move to these desirable areas? Assuming that there is a very limited housing supply (which there usually is in these kinds of places) then why should locals get preference just because they were lucky enough to have been born there? I just think this is the ultimate in entitlement and entrenching generational privilege.

We all have our reasons for wanting to live somewhere and I don't think it's fair that locals are assumed to have more valid reasons. I also think holiday homes are fine if in use for large chunks of time. Without them then the tourist trade would really suffer as lots of people simply don't want hotels anymore

They should take the appraoch we take in Cape Town: tourists are welcome, we love to take their money, we'll happily rent them out expensive apartments and hotels and lay on all kinds of fabulous things they'll love to spend money on.... but they will never be one of us and even if they move here, we will look down on them forever ++

++ obviously, while this is largely true, I'm actually being facetious. Cape Townians can be right wankers and ridiculously cliquey, even if I am one (although that might explain why I don't live there anymore!)

Again though, don't you see how 'protecting' locals detriments those who aren't fortunate enough to have been born in such lovely places. By all means ring fence affordable housing but this should be available to those doing important jobs that benefit the community, not just those that happen to have been born there.

I think people buying up nice villages have had a devastating effect on the locals. They have to move away from where they were brought up and their family and social network because they can no longer afford the area. Holiday homes push up the prices and are empty most of the year while locals have to move away.

Unregulated tourism means more rentals for travellers, lack of parking, busy roads and more pollution and destruction of the landscape. The tourist industry is generally poorly paid and only lasts a season.

If you have a free-for-all then a lovely place becomes over-developed and crowded, and it's no longer a lovely place.

I see the virtues in restricting housing and wish it was a nationwide policy to protect people from education tourists too.

I can fully see the point the Cornish make regarding tourists and by proxy, those who live in other areas which attract high levels of tourists.

It's a tricky one. My family moved to a tourist hotspot about 14 years ago. They see it from both perspectives.

The tourists bring a much needed influx of cash and they say it's nice to have the mix of multiculturalism (most locals are white).

It's tricky to find seasonal workers because most of them can't afford lodgings, unless the job includes somewhere to live.

The average wage for the town is incredibly low, and most people on normal salaries can't afford to buy. It's almost impossible to rent anywhere on a long term basis, as there's more money in short term lets.

Go 2 miles down the road and it's one of the most economically deprived areas in the country.

If you sell houses at a subsidised rate

1. who makes up the difference in market rate? (unless the councils build new houses specifically for this purpose)
2. how do you stop the locals buying the properties and then selling them on at vastly inflated prices to the second home owners?

The - maybe oversimplidied - answer IMO is for the council to invest in building council houses, which are only rented to locals and the rent is subsidised. Lots of people can't afford to buy all over the country, but I think the difference is that, in tourist hotspots, people would far rather make the money off weekly lets than year long tenancies.

The council houses would have to be regularly checked to ensure the people on the tenancy were living in them, not renting them out, as has happened!

I don't know how you get around the ebb and flow of tourism. Where my family live, it's pretty lively all year round as a tourist destination, so you don't get a feel of a ghost town like I know some places have. I can see how that would be depressing and frustrating for locals.

At the end of the day, market forces determine our decisions - we are a capitalist society, whether we like it or not.

I think that beautiful places should be for everyone to enjoy, but those who come have a responsibility to be mindful that some people live there year round, and that they support the local economy (independent shops) where possible.

We’re trying to relocate to one of these ‘beautiful’ parts of the UK and keep hitting the stumbling block of local occupancy clauses. Employers need to encourage more workforce there, hence a hefty relocation package comes with, but it’s still incredibly difficult to do - to a point where it’s just a bit silly.

It’s one way locals can ‘protect’ an area I suppose but in reality, a local who has lived or worked there for 3 years could buy a house and make it a holiday let, whereas we want to build our future there.

You only have to stray slightly in these beauty spots to see how deprived some of the surrounding areas are. They can resent tourism all they like, but it’s one of the only reasons those beauty spots aren’t deprived themselves…

I agree with you 100%

And i also will never forget the attitudes of some people who lived in attractive places during Covid.

I've been in your position, OP, and I do find the accident of birth superiority frustrating. It isn't my fault my parents moved me around as a child and I didn't get to have roots in one location, and I don't see why just happening to be born somewhere gives you some sort of first dibs. Having said all that, moving somewhere and becoming part of the community is different to what I think is the real issue driving prices up. Second homes. If you want to live somewhere, live there. Don't just turn up for two weeks in summer and leave an empty house. Having 50% empty houses in winter is destructive. Shops and pubs close, leaving residents with few amenities because the population is just too small to be viable.
Tourism can be frustrating when locals feel neglected. When all the money is spent on stuff to bring in tourists in summer, leaving no budget for needed facilities for those that live there. That isn't the fault of the tourists and they shouldn't be blamed for it.
And to be fair, locals must take a bit of responsibility for the 'second home' problem, as somebody must have sold that house in the first place, and some locals definitely have cashed in on this and Airbnb, all reducing the availability of cheap housing.
It's a difficult one. I can see both sides, TBF.

I don’t think most want to restrict it but they’re just very over how little infrastructure is invested in and how badly a small group of people behave.
i live in the highlands on the nc500, which has a lot of locals angry, But a lot of the roads aren’t build for huge amounts of people and caravans, there’s no investment to do anything about it. I’ve also seen so much human shit, from people dumping their chemical toilets in fields to actually just taking dumps on the side of the road, lovely. Anders Povlsen makes money off the nc500 without investing back into the roads, more community toilets, education in terms of don’t shit on the side of the road, I can see why people are over it.

My country thrives on tourism . For the most part we embrace and welcome people as it is not in our nature to be churlish. I live near a beach and on a sunny weekend cars park in our estate. But these are people wanting to enjoy a day out and it is nice to share this . No harm done , a little inconvenience.
As regards housing, in some areas you have to prove a local connection to build on land . Low income housing the same ie family , job in the area .

I know I am lucky to live like this . During lockdown I really felt sorry for families in flats with no outdoor space .

Don't understand why people are so negative about visitors . Whatever happened to Be Kind ?

People do 'own' the most beautiful and desirable parts of the world though, don't they? They live there, they own the property there, they pay their council tax there, they contribute to and develop the community and set the culture there, so obviously their sense of ownership will be higher than someone turning up for a week in summer, and obviously they will feel put out if those people cause them inconvenience. The problem isn't about being territorial about the place you live, that's human nature, its more about who gets to live there. And unfortunately when it comes to beautiful and desirable places its the wealthy that get the monopoly, and the only way the less wealthy can get to experience them is to turn up for a week in summer and upset the residents.

I think air b&bs and second homes should be taxed/legislated out of existence. Holiday makers should stay in hotels/ caravan parks/purpose built lodges.

I think if that happened then the housing would cope a lot better with people that do actually want to live in the place.

Social housing/affordable housing can require a local connection but there isn't enough of that to solve the shortage for locals.

In some areas youngsters will move away for better paid work and life experiences and then I think they would lose that right to local connection housing anyway. Do you think local youngsters should be able to move away but still get priority if they want to move back? (Genuine question).

Alot of holiday lets are owned by the people who live in these hotspots, its not all 'incomers', and who is sellkng the properties to 2nd home owners from outside?

But if the nice villages were reserved for locals then where would people like me live? Irrespective of how hard I work and how much money I earn, I would always be stuck in a less desirable part of the country as all the best places will be reserved for locals and their children. How can you argue that this is in anyway fair or right? Also I assume I would be expected to fund the subsidised housing for the locals on some way as goodness knows there isn't enough money in the local economy for this if they start restricting tourism and preventing rich outsiders from moving in

I live in a tourist hot-spot and have no issue with tourists visiting IF they are considerate. Sadly since COVID there has been an increase in dog fouling, dogs on dog free beaches, littering, illegal parking, etc etc.

Completely agree OP, I was born and raised in London on a council estate, I’ve now lived in two beautiful tourist hotspots and absolutely despise the gate keeping and drawbridge raising attitudes I’ve sometimes encountered, it goes hand in hand with NIMBYISM for me as well, people don’t like to share. But birth is a lottery, some get a shit deal and if they want to move as adults to these places, it’s a free market and nobody has a birthright or owns pretty areas.

Part of the issue is people who weren't born in an area and live 90% of their time in big cities buy up all the local property which then lies empty except for 5 weeks of the year. This drives up prices for true locals and means they can't afford to live in the villages they were born in.
Or people who visit and have zero respect for the place they are visiting, or think the countryside is a playground rather than a work place.

The alternative viewpoint...

Leaving aside the second homes (which are a much bigger problem).

I am from a 'desirable' area (cold wet and midgy but it does have pretty mountains). My family is from here, and my ancestors fought for their right to stay (Highland Clearances). Historically this has been a very difficult place to live. Now technology makes it easier, everyone wants to live here. Funnily it's mostly people who have had lucrative careers elsewhere in the country who then want to buy houses with their capital acquired elsewhere and outbid local people who have generally poorly paid jobs because that's what the majority of jobs are here. Some inward movement is very welcome, but the scale of it is untenable. If this is allowed to go on unabated there will be no locals left. Whole swathes of the people I went to school with are unable to live here in the place they grew up.

My village and nearby villages are full of my parents, aunties, uncles, cousins, and my husband's too. I don't give a shiny shit about the pretty mountains - this is my home, the place I am from. Should I be forced to move away to allow you your equal 'right' to live here? The place where I know every rock and stream, where I know the vast majority of the people who live here, our shared history, our language, our entire lives? Because you think the mountains are pretty?