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!

Although I see your point, you could then say the same about people who are lucky enough to be born in one country and get to have citizenship there vs those born in other countries and have to escape. The whole
immigration concept.

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.

In a sense, people who grew up in a place ARE more entitled to live there (or perhaps more precisely have much more of a need to live there) than people who move there as adults/later in life, with no local connections, because they can now afford a nice/pretty place to live and have randomly chosen this one. The problem is, when locals are priced out of any kind of housing anywhere near the community where they grew up, they lose the support networks they have spent a lifetime building. And the people who move in don't necessarily gain access to those networks or contribute to their new communities. Also, what happens to the "ugly", less desirable communities if everyone who can afford to move away does move away?

Planning policy in National Parks favour holiday accommodation over housing. You can look it up if you can be bothered. So you'll get planning for converting an outbuilding to a 2 bed holiday let, but not for a permanent rental, because one of their aims is STILL stated as encouraging visitors.

Hello Brexit...

I'm not being simplistic, just open mined and realistic. I live in one of the areas that is the bette noir of the Welsh government and always in the papers. It is expensive in the nicest part, but a short ride away you can buy a house for 3 times average local wages, you cant do that in most other parts of the country.

In summer it is very busy, with tourist spending money. Out of season like most world wide tourist resorts it is quieter. Those of us left enjoy the better facilities provided for and by the tourists, and enjoy a quite few months together. The community still exists and is if anything stronger than ever.

My friendly local builder tells me that for the last 10 years, most of his projects are for people from Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham renovating local derelict properties. Millions of ponds into the local economy and expanding the housing stock. Who would want to stop that?

The narrative that tourist and second homes are bad, is lazy simplistic thinking aiming to play for easy votes from hard of thinking. To everyone who says they want less tourism, I ask what will you replace the money with?

Sadly they often don't spend that £50 with a local business. They arrive in a campervan having done their shopping at a supermarket beforehand, clog up the roads that weren't designed for them, drive to all the "must see" spots so they can take a photo for IG then park up wherever they feel like it rather than paying to stay at an actual campsite.

The roads are becoming undrivable in places because they're so damaged. Residents in one part of Skye have been unable to get back to their homes on multiple days because of total gridlock for hours.

Skye welcomes tourists but there is a limit. I would fully support a toll on the bridge.

I can see it from both “sides”.

The main issue imho with young local people being priced out of a desirable area by “second homers” is the dislocation of family support networks.

On the other hand, it’s a free country and anyone should be able to live wherever they want. I’ve recently moved to a beautiful coastal town and am enjoying the beach and sea swimming immensely. I’m glad I wasn’t prohibited from moving here.

I’m assuming beauty hot spot locals never go on holiday themselves, are never tourists anywhere. Otherwise that would be quite hypocritical.

I’m a remainer!! I’m making the point that lots of people would say things like that.

Weird. I've lived in Cornwall for (counts on fingers) 22 years, and I've had someone saying she doesn't like me because I wasn't born here a grand total of.....once. Those of us born in the village, born in other parts of Cornwall, born over the Tamar, and even born (sharp intake of breath) abroad all rub along pretty well.

But then we don't tend to come out with insulting shite about us being ungrateful because we depend on the tourist trade etc. Only 17% of the Cornish economy stems from tourism, and it tends to come with more than its fair share of problems.

So I wonder, if you're getting a hostile reception from the locals, might it be down to your attitude? 🤔

It's happening in St Ives. Friends closed their pub because they could not get staff. Apparently the Porthminster Beach Cafe is really struggling too, but I'm told they turned their staff accommodation block into holiday lets, so..🤷‍♀️ Elsewhere, seasonal workers are living in vans or even tents for the summer.

Tourists bring money. They're a pain at certain times but people accept they benefit the local economy somewhat. Managed tourism is really important- hotels and BBs especially, a limited number of self-catering houses.

Second home owners bring very little but they buy up a lot of the limited housing stock. There's a small coastal village near me that is absolutely dead now for most of the year. It actually makes me sad driving through it in the winter. Airbnbs seem to attract people who don't know how to behave decently. Huge groups crammed in with no supervision, multiple cars, big parties.

I'm glad your area is doing OK with community. Here it's tougher because as retirees pass away their houses are snapped up for holiday homes by people on city salaries. Local people just can't compete on lower, hospitality industry wages. Our cafés, shops and restaurants are struggling to get staff because 18-35s can't afford to buy or rent (and there are virtually no longterm rentals). So ironically the tourist industry is suffering because of staffing issues. So is the local hospital.

Yes people are struggling for staff here too. The nearest affordable housing is in a town eight miles away and public transport is poor so staff have to drive but can't get parked.

In Wales it’s complicated by the Welsh language and culture though.

They’re always chasing profit and they don’t give a shit what market it is or whether they ruin it as long as they’re in first and out having made £££.

Do they need that house or do they need a house?
I bought a house where I could afford. I'd like a home opposite the beach. I'd like a penthouse in London. But they're out of my price range

Do the second home owners NEED that house?

The clue is in the name. They already have one so no they don't. Instead they could support the local community by staying in a hotel, rather than acting like locusts hoovering up whatever they want.

My argument is more concerned with holiday lets rather than second homes left empty. Holiday let owners do bring money to the area. They're two different things

Yes and there should be limited numbers of holiday lets available with strict controls in place. In too many areas it's like the wild west. People from outside our area see us as a resource to be exploited, not a community of people trying to make lives here.

Surely though, if the demand has pushed the value of your house up too, then that's a benefit? More security for your old age, @Jabtastic. potentially more inheritance to pass in to your children eventually. Would you rather the house prices on your area flatlined?

There are pensioners where I live in London, who are sitting in properties they bought in the 1970s for maybe a hundred thousand, and now the houses are worth about £5 million. All that money, just because of where they happened to live. It's true that their children will find it harder to buy in the area, but overall nobody is complaining when your home, your biggest asset, increases in value. At least people who have accrued wealth by postcode have the option of helping children out in the future.

I have no problem whatsoever with limits and controls but there are people on here saying they shouldn't be allowed at all

I'm disabled and my house will likely be needed to fund my care home as I get older. I'd really like to have children/ grandchildren living near me as I get older funnily enough. My home is my home and my community is my community, not some sort of golden goose to be slaughtered. It's an interesting insight into how some people look at us from the outside. A resource to be exploited, not a community of people making our lives here.

Never mind places like Cornwall, British people have been buying holiday homes in Spain etc for decades. Look at what that has done to large areas of the Spanish coastline. And they don't even learn the language, most if the time.

That only applies if you are on the property ladder to begin with. Many people aren't, and have no hope of getting so with house prices and rents rocketing.

@zileri There are pensioners where I live in London, who are sitting in properties they bought in the 1970s for maybe a hundred thousand, and now the houses are worth about £5 million. All that money, just because of where they happened to live. It's true that their children will find it harder to buy in the area, but overall nobody is complaining when your home, your biggest asset, increases in value. At least people who have accrued wealth by postcode have the option of helping children out in the future.

its cockeyed thinking like this whereby people are happy to see their kids struggle with rents but want to pass their housing wealth on that hamstrings Britain completely.

Houses are for living in, not primarily ‘generational wealth’ sources. How is that even a serious phrase? I keep seeing it everywhere. It’s this decade’s buzzword. ‘Accrued wealth by postcode’ should be taxed at 90%.