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 never said I don't like them. They are people. I love some, like others and dislike some. I said I detested a certain attitude that some of them had. I can still like or love them as people. Many people may well consider me and my children to be locals now anyway.

I was born and have lived in the lake district most of my life, and we do need tourism to survive.
However I do find it sad that my children won't be able to afford a home here, I can trace my family back to 1540 and this will be the first generation to move out. I also miss the strong cumbrian accents I grew up with.
I do however find that most people who move here appreciate and look after the countryside as well as getting involved in cumbrian life as well as bring valuable skills to the community. People moving here is fine they give back to the community, second homes and Airbnb are the problem.
I also wish businesses wouldn't bring swanky bars/restaurants, it doesn't feel like part of the local tradition.

I bet they don’t.

Do the tourists ride for free then? The revenue from the tourists lowers the subsidy from the tax payer. With no revenue the tax payer may well decide it's just not worth it...

Attitudes like that and you wonder why the "incomers" might want to change things. How horrible.

So the ferries are run by the government.

The prices are set based on road pricing levels which is why a crossing from Ullapool to Stornaway (which takes 2h 40m) for 2 adults and a car is less than £90, which is less or the same as the Dover-Calais ferry which is much quicker. Prices the same year round. The ferry is an essential island service so the Scottish government absorbs the cost and there is no need for it to make a profit. The service will continue however much money it makes/loses.

Tourists pay the same rate as islanders, or anyone else in Scotland wishing to use the service as there is not two-tier pricing. Ferry places are limited and if the tourists buy up all the tickets, the locals can't get off the island.

As with many things in Scotland, it would be easy to come up with some sort of charging to make it cheaper for residents, more expensive for tourists. This is very common between the Spanish balearic islands, or between the Balearics and the mainland. Residents pay a fraction of the tourist price.

Not free but it's road equivalent tariff now isn't it?

In the town I’m from some people ask potential buyers to write a letter explaining why they want the house if they only want a family to live there, but really they could write anything just to get their hands on it.

I have tbh and say there has been a change in the type of tourists visiting here since covid - as I have said before I am happy for people to experience other parts of the UK. The one positive from covid is many people saw parts of the UK which they would never have seen before as they could not fly to other destinations.

What it has done though is change the demographic of those visitors be it for good or bad. People want to view the wonderful environment, see local traditions, shop in small villages and towns, all enjoying what the area has to offer. Sadly there are some visitors who have visited over the last 3-4 years who like the area but want it to adapt to meet their needs, so wanting to park in remote areas where other visitors would walk to, want swanky bars, want more adventure options (zip wires etc) rather than just enjoying what is here naturally.

Some locals are concerned about the changes as they feel they are not all for the good of the area. From that I think it is a natural progression to becoming more protective of our surroundings and more circumspect of visitors and incomers alike.

Would there be enough locals to keep the pubs bars restaurants and shops going the rest of the year?

As has been explained, this is totally incorrect re ferries.

Thanks for the patronising economy lesson, though!

The argument I'm making is not 'no tourists', it's that we need more ferries. Rural areas have scant services and these are easily overwhelmed due to poor planning from those in charge.

In that instance i would be entirely in favour of a two tier system

I live in the Peak District and detest the fact that only those that can afford can live here whether they are outsiders or insiders 😁. I don’t ever see any evidence of outsiders not being wanted. What I do see is nearly half the village being second homes.

Not read the whole thread, but our town has had a massive influx of Londoners. They don't want to move here for the beauty, they want to move here for the house prices.

My ex-Londoner boss invited me to his Christmas party last year. All the people, bar me, had moved from London. All of them cited their reason for moving as the ability to purchase a large family home and a 2 bed rental flat here for the same price as a 3 bed in London. One of my bosses neighbours lives in his house for 4 weeks in August. The rest of the year it's empty.

It made me sick. So many of my friends can't afford to buy here, as all these Londoners have pushed the price of a house skyhigh.y

You would have more of a point if it wasn't those that move in that despise the tourists and those that move in after them even more.

Its also equally hypocritical that those that move in almost always try and change the area that they move into. Anything from the church bells are to loud to the local farm/factory is to loud, smelly and dusty.

Families don't want to live in hotel rooms either - but they have to when there is nowhere else to live. I think a families right to a home is more important than a families right to their preferred holiday accommodation.

As for people selling to the highest bidder - you can't expect people to act against their best interests. Legislation is needed to stop residential properties being used as holiday lets e.g. require planning permission for short term lettings and heavily tax or again require planning permission for second (empty) homes.

Well sadly the buggers living in wealthy areas tend to vote for central governments that don’t like spending much on poorer areas. Hence most of the south (apart from parts of London) historically loving the Conservatives, voting them in repeatedly.

Where I live is very beautiful but second home owners are a bit of a scourge. They buy up houses, demolish them, build McMansions and then only stay in them 2-4 weeks a year. It's not good for our community. And yes it's annoying when summer tourists dump litter everywhere and it gets so busy in summer we struggle to get on with life. Simple things like getting to the pharmacy or Post Office become missions.

I know people will rage at this - but having tourist honeypot areas (eg Skye) does protect other wild areas away from these honey-pots from excessive visitor numbers. Obviously it's crap if you live there though!

Generally, people are fairly unimaginative in where they visit (eg hillwalking - they go up Ben Nevis or Ben Lomond, the paths of which which look like a queue on good weekends in the summer - but that leaves other munro's much quieter, means loads of businesses open nearby, keeps everyone safe and contained...).

Translation: Where I live second home owners pour hundreds of thousands of pounds into the local economy and make little demands on infrastructure. In summer so much tourist money is poured into the local economy, that sometimes it gets a bit busy

Someone’s desire for a specific type of holiday should be way down the priority list after someone who needs that house to live in.

Moving to a beautiful area to make a life for yourself and your family? Sure, go right ahead. Buying up a house that could have gone to a local and turning into a holiday home you visit once a year? Get tae fuck.

Two tier pricing is common in other places. We are planning a trip to Fuerteventura soon and looked at ferry prices. For a non-resident to travel Fuerteventura to Lanzarote it's 17 euros one way as a foot passenger. For a resident, the same journey is 4.25 euros - 25% of the price.

Nobody is saying we don't want tourists in rural Scotland. We welcome s manageable number of tourists, but some of the most popular places are overrun to the stage that ambulances can't get through.

You're being very simplistic.

These people raise prices for houses which means local people can no longer afford them. Their houses lie empty all through the winter meaning street after street of dark windows. Older people have no neighbours to keep an eye on them (empty houses) and their children and grandchildren can't afford to buy locally. I'll be one of those older people in a few years and I'm disabled so I will need people around me.

We don't really want second home owners here to be honest. They don't contribute much at all after their house renovations are complete (and often use outside contractors anyway) but they make huge demands on housing stock. Our home is our home, not a tourist playground.