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!

Jabtastic -

What do you think happens in other parts of the U.K. though? Why are you different? Look at London - people move here from all corners of the globe. So what? Not one if my neighbours was born around here - we are all 'incomers' if you like. That's totally normal! Places change - nowhere is static. And places that are static will get left behind. Gone are the days when you can expect your children or grandchildren to stay in a village. That's just not realistic. To do what? Mine went to uni at 18 - who knows if they'll want to settle around here? Probably not, it's not really a 'young person place.' I could quite imagine them going overseas in the near future, They have to seize whatever opportunities present. People move. Places change. Always have and always will.

@alpenguin

Where the fun in living in or moving to a e.g highland village and everyone there is from the south east of England? I wonder how many of those complaining about people wanting to make it more difficult to move to these “beautiful” places or touristy places also complain about non Brits not assimilating directly into British life and culture because there is a direct comparison. (And for the inevitable well we’re all British response, each region and even each village has its own culture that is slowly being eroded by goodlifers from the south east

Better tell that to our royal family then about their little hideaway called Balmoral!

Bloody migrants coming here and taking our jobs and houses ……oh wait that’s on the royal family too

In London a lot of incomers move for work. They live in the city so they contribute to the local economy. Where overseas investors buy up housing stock to 'hold' they should be penalised financially. It is immoral to have empty properties when people are homeless.

Where I am some houses lie empty for 48+ weeks a year. It's indefensible. It fractures communities. Our families can't afford to live nearby but neither can careworkers. At least if vulnerable people die off someone can snap up their houses to build a holiday home!

People are so short-sighted. It reminds me of the rich Californians complaining they can't get a pool boy because no one on low wages can afford to live there. More than that, so many people are miserable. Mental health is so poor in millions of people. Community isn't valued anymore in many areas. Families are seperated. People are isolated. But fuck that, as long as people can have their holiday house by the sea / mountains, even if it lies empty all year.

People can't have it both ways really.

If it should be impossible or difficult for people to move to beautiful areas like Cornwall and the Lake District, then perhaps the converse should also be true - young people in these areas should be required to stay there and support their communities rather than having the chance to move to places with greater economic opportunities such as London or other big cities. Then hopefully property prices in cities would fall, and maybe the "Londoners", for example, would be able to afford property there and stop moving out to less populated areas.

The reality is that greater economic and geographical independence comes at a cost, which is the dislocation of local communities and family networks to a certain extent.

Those suggesting limits on numbers of second homes and holiday lets, I am a firm believer that bans or restrictions can sometimes cause more problems than it solves.

Lets say a strict number of second homes is implemented - suddenly one of those homes is sold, would that not push up the price even more as it becomes an even more required property?

If the restriction is it can only be sold as a "locals" home then the current owners are unlikely to sell it as it will have to be sold at a value lower than market value.

The same with restricting holiday lets, all it will do is push the rental prices up.

To those who say visitors should stay in hotel or lodges, that will require more to be built. Would I prefer an old stone cottage to be renovated and used as a holiday let instead of a new hotel being built - I know which I would prefer.

People buy second homes all over the place though. How many properties in South of France or Spain are owned by British who might only go there for a few months a year? How many properties in Knightsbridge are owned by Saudi, Qatari or UAE billionaires who just drop in when on business? I understand the issues related to properties left empty for most of the year, but I'm not sure how you can stop people buying properties on the basis of where they happened to be born, nor can you really limit people to one home (realistically) if they can afford to buy other properties. I di take your point though @Jabtastic.

I know. The one about the school closing down made me cry when I first read it! And the man losing his home because the landlord is turning it into an air b&b. I hate them, never used them. I always stay in hotels or proper b&bs when I go away.

True. My family haven’t forgotten. There are many other places in the world which weren’t so nasty during Covid and I’ll spend my money in those places.

OP sounds NOTHING like them. Jesus

OP, you’re being disingenuous with your made up problem that there are only sink estates and places of outstanding natural beauty to choose to live in, with no options in between.

In reality there’s a vast swathe of options in between. And if you can afford to buy in places of outstanding beauty then you’re not short of a few bob.

Having said that, wherever you buy or visit, don’t let the locals ruin it for you. As you say, they don’t own the area. Respect is two ways, both parties have to give it.

Just read the school one, it is sad.

Sad that there is no doctor’s surgery, bank or post office for the locals either.

I hope the second homers enjoy their ghost town village.

Agree. And like someone upthread said, who's going to work in the cafés and shops and things if no one local can afford to live there?

Make it easier to build purpose-built holiday homes in nice places.

Build hotels, and look into hotel facilities which encourage year-round tourism (spa stuff, for example) regardless of weather, to avoid dramatic ups and downs in tourist numbers

Build more housing for locals. If there is concern about "There's no space!" have discussions about denser housing, to avoid encroaching on green fields and forests.

Increase the supply of nice places by making more towns and cities nicer (greenifying, pedestrianization schemes etc.)

Make tourists pay tourist taxes - reasonably fat ones, too, not just a few quid.

Consider running tourist buses and restricting cars firmly in areas that get overrun with cars in the summer, like Skye.

Allow two-tier pricing if desired by locals (however, it would help if the UK had a proper ID card system)

In local areas, there need to be clear and tough discussions about tradeoffs. Fewer tourists mean less money. Replacing tourists with "incomers who are long-term residents" may just mean loads of elderly people moving into "quaint" areas, using up tons of expensive services and clogging up the GP. Refusing to allow any building will mean a local housing crisis. Building more housing for both locals and newcomers involves the tradeoff of "sprawl vs tall" - either you need to accept more building on new land (sometimes green sites), or you will need to accept some taller and denser housing. I saw someone pouting about "zip lines" earlier on and saying "Why can't people just enjoy the area as it is already?" - but a zip line facility is the perfect example of the sort of thing that will attract people at other times of the year; if all you've got is a beach or whatever, you will end up empty at non-summer times of year, meaning there is more pressure to allow unrestricted numbers during the UK's very brief summer. I'm sensitive to the difficulties currently faced by people in these areas, but I also think it's only fair to point out that locals in these areas can sometimes be their own worst enemies, and demand "Santa wishlists" rather than policies - wanting tourism money without tourists, wanting housing but getting angry when anything has to be built, refusing to allow the building of tall buildings but not wanting green fields touched either, trying to block the development of leisure facilities that might make an area popular year-round, and then getting upset that "this place empties out in the summer and is like a ghost town."

Re older people retiring to these kinds of areas: they are not breaking any laws, nor should they be, but there should be some sort of government information campaign directed at ensuring that people are at least making a fully informed decision.

We don't know how well self driving cars are going to go, and self-driving cars do not, in any case, do very much to reduce the big problem of tiny towns and seaside/rural areas, which is that it is inherently very hard and expensive to provide services there, and old people consume lots of services. As populations age, anything non-statutory is going to get slashed, so in some areas things like bus services may start disappearing. It may be very hard to bring in people to provide household help and gardening help to older people when they start to struggle, so anyone without a family network in these areas may end up in serious difficulties.

As for people selling to the highest bidder - you can't expect people to act against their best interests

If that goes for locals, it also goes for outsiders

I was literally thinking that. It makes no sense you can’t expect the locals to go against their best interests, but you should outsiders who should save the locals from themselves. That’s a whole new level of entitlement.

But foreigners do not pay to subsidise Singaporeans to live in Singapore
Of course they do - they pay higher taxes which are used to support the excellent public housing, health and education systems (which are not available to foreigners).
I don't get why you're so unempathetic to people wanting to live where they grew up - these places aren't just a theme park but home for people and their families for generations. It's very strange to just ignore that and think it's all about physical beauty.

One of the key issues is that we expect society to pick up more and more care functions to save the state and local authorities money, be that supporting children with childcare of grandchildren or supporting elderly parents. We can't do this if young or lower paid local people are priced out of their local areas, and have to move somewhere where there is no social safety net for them.

You don't only get cohesive high-trust communities in remote areas or those where only members of the same fairly few families have lived there for generations.

This is completely true, but someone 'detesting' the fact that some people are having a bit of an existential crisis as they see their families unable to live in their home place is not the road to social cohesion.

Young people don't generally want to stay in seaside towns where there is little opportunity though. Moving away is a rite of passage. Different areas will inevitably attract different demographics - 20-somethings will gravitate to 'hipster' parts of cities; 30-somethings may become a bit more surburban when they have kids and then retired people may head for more remote coastal areas or remote, scenic places generally. Affordable housing won't encourage young people to stay in coastal areas if the job opportunities and social scene are limited.

I've noticed it in Bakewell. One of the most-visited places in the Peak District, hoaching with tourists, but many pubs etc opening or serving food only on a few days a week and/or on reduced hours because of staffing issues.

Neither is the attitude the OP describes, of wanting to restrict outsiders' ability to live in and visit their area and also state subsidies to fund the local people's way of life.

One thing that would avoid the need for "everyone" to live in the south-east for work would be more remote working.

If you say someone only has to come into a London office once a week or once a fortnight or once a month, they can live a lot further away. That spreads the load across the country. Obviously lots of jobs have to be done on-site, but many don't. There are also advantages to employers of having a wider geographical pool to select from. Win win.

Obviously you need decent broadband everywhere for this to work.

Agree with this, I’m not a Londoner but lived for the longest I’ve ever lived anywhere and most ‘Londoners’ aren’t actually from London at all, people who move out from London either get priced out or move back to where their families live. London is made up of people moving there for work so anyone moaning about people ‘down from London or ‘Up from London’ are targeting them for the sake of it. I feel sorry for born and bred Londoners as they nearly all have to move out of London.