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!

And yet, this argument is turned completely on its head when it comes to inheritance. We do have state subsidised inter generational privilege. We should tax the shit out of inheritance and we let families pretty keep the lot, when all it is house inflation. I have a strong feeling you would do a volte face and be on the other side of that debate.

i think your original post can be distilled down to why should someone get a subsidy for something I had to pay full price for.

You're calling it 'privilege' to live somewhere with nice scenery, though.

Many people who live in remote rural areas are poverty stricken, with a serious lack of opportunity and work. So they don't see themselves as 'privileged'. And they are priced out of buying a home where they grew up.

It's kind of like saying people who live in high rise flats are 'privileged' because they have lovely views, never mind their economic status.

I have empathy for those people because I too have emotional ties to my home town. I think it is totally human to feel attached to the place you were born and raised, especially if the bulk of your friends and family still live there. The issue is when people begin to feel a sense of entitlement to a place because of this. That they deserve to live there more than anyone else because they happen to have been born there. When there is a finite resource like housing in beautiful places, it is hard to allocate this fairly. If you prioritise some people then this will be at the expense of others.

Culture is also a tricky thing to pin down. Most towns and cities have a culture that is quite specific to the area. I know my hometown does where we have own turns of phrase and words for things and if I was to say where it was then people from the wider area would be able to describe traits that people from the town tend to share. No effort is being made to ring fence or preserve that culture though and in fact it's quite the opposite as it is a place that the government likes to send a lot of migrants to. Is this culture less valid than the culture in a picturesque town on the coast? Who decides? If all cultures are equally valid and need to be preserved then nobody would ever be able to move anywhere as by default this would dilute the culture.

Why would you think I misread?

You are still putting all of the emphasis on the scenery. Scenery is important but it's not the only thing about a place that matters.

No irony intended, whatsoever 😞 just a comment on the utter despair that I feel for local families priced out of the market by wealthy arrogant interlopers whether on holiday or thinking they want to live the good life. Very few tourists or people who move to beautiful parts of the country Become part of the local economy and part of local society. In the big cities the transport infrastructure is such that it is far easier for people who have to move a little further away to get around and go back to visiting their families for example. I don’t normally bother when somebody posts such a post as yours , but I am so depressed and so sad by people who think they can bulldoze in and destroy the lives of people whose families have been there for generations that I felt I had to say something and I feel that I needed to respond to you so you are entitled to your opinion but no irony just utter despair and sadness.

As long as it's the person's only residence and not a part time holiday home/let or whatever then I don't really get how they're less of a part of the local economy (do they never buy anything? Never start businesses or work for local businesses?)- also how are they less part of society? Plenty of people who have lived in a place for generations do nothing much to benefit the local community. Thinking on it, the majority of decent local initiatives and charities here are run by people who moved here from elsewhere.

Haven’t read most of the thread, but in this country, at least, I feel like we could do more to protect picturesque villages and towns from overtourism by taking steps elsewhere to consider the look and feel of the built environment more. Most towns in this country are like mine - blighted by ugly, ill-thought out building, clashing shop hoardings (new trend here seems to be to light up barbershops and takeaways so they can be seen from outer space) and garish fixtures like digital ad displays. Town near me installed a cycle lane separated from the rest of the road by hundreds of bright blue bollards spaced an inch or two from each other. Absolute eyesore in a previously pretty road.

No wonder that on a sunny day pretty towns around the country are inundated with visitors.

No, local cultures and tradition continue with those who choose to move into an area and accept, join in with the local traditions, this they continue.

From simple things as local sayings and words, to an appreciation of local sports, even taking part.

It is all part of deciding to move to another area and become part of its community. Not everyone does this and of course not every local is welcoming of those incomers - but for the majority it does work.

In life some people do not get on with others - doesn't matter whether you are local or not.

This is not about capitalism, middle classes, inheritance tax, what car people drive - it is simply about some people choose to move to other areas which for whatever reason they deem to be better than where they are (jobs, environment, lifestyle etc) - it is a sad and dangerous society when some people decide who can and cannot live somewhere. As I said in previous post, market forces decide prices and human nature is such people will always want to achieve the highest price for property they are selling.

This post is so ridiculous and xenophobic. Why are you suggesting that people who move into an area don't become part of society? Maybe it's because people like you who think "it's a local town for local people" are too busy shunning them! And actually it's not easier to get about in a big city what are you on about? Have you ever tried to drive say 5 miles through London? And yeah we have good trains but actually if you live in the suburbs you're not connected with any other part of suburbia unless you go into central London and back out again!

Lots of these rural remote places are really inexpensive to live in. Look at Lincolnshire for example or other similar counties. There is a lot of beauty but a lot of deprivation and house prices are generally low. This thread is about specific beautiful areas that appeal to a large number of people hence house prices are expensive.

You are by default privileged if you have something that lots of people would like but don't have. Of course there can be downsides to privilege too but that doesn't stop it being a privilege.

Look, my remote rural area is 'inexpensive' in the eyes of incomers. It's not for the people who live here! Jobs are few. Wages are low. So we have people moving here able to afford lovely houses and calling the area 'inexpensive' - great for them, but to say that a person who was born here, with concomitant issues accessing education, work, and housing, is 'privileged' because the scenery is nice is insulting.

And of course someone born here into a low wage household with few prospects of education or decent career paths is going to struggle moving to an expensive city to study or further themselves.

I think your use of the word priviledge is wrong - does a hill farmer, gathering stock off the fells, knowing the price they are going to get at market will barely cover their costs or pay for the new roof of the barn think of themselves as priviledged? Whilst gatherig those stock, it may be in stunning surroundings which is home but I do not think it will be seen as a priviledge.

You seem to equate those living in beautiful parts of the country (who defines what is beautiful?) should acknowledge the fact they must be priviledged and lucky leading to their property will be worth a lot of money therefore they are rich. It is a simplistic view, it is far more complex than that.

I actually think it is a privilege to be able to live near family, especially if you're not actually living in the same house. Much of the world probably don't get that privilege.

Could you not make your own area more desirable?

I live in a highly desirable area of London, but when my parents moved here it wasn't considered desirable,except by the locals. It's thanks to the generations of locals who have formed communities, worked together to keep it safe and tidy, created parks and gardens, hold festivals and events, care for one another and the environment, that it's desirable.

Then rich people come along and complain that we're here!

Well, it would be the norm,only modern practices and policies have prevented it in many situations. It's still desirable for most, though, if not their families, at least stable, reliable communities. If it's a privilege, it shouldn't be, as it's the healthy way for humans to live.

This.

Inexpensive for who? Maybe if you see everything through an avaricious estate agents' eyes.

Same with privilege - it's to do with perspective as it could be argued that everyone is privileged in myriad ways. Add to that, privilege is often earned - for example, by people's families committing to a particular place and contributing to make it what it is. By farming the land, creating communities and so on in thousands of tiny ways. Like - I'm privileged to have an interesting job but it's also down to decisions I made, and what work I put in, and when.

I don't know which part of London you live in but I can assure you that any part is too expensive for the average youngster these days. If you're in a "highly desirable" part then it'll be out of the reach of most middle aged ones too! So that means people have to move out to places that are cheaper because that's ALL THEY CAN AFFORD. For the most part it's not because the area is "more desirable".
And even if it is just because it's just nicer - you'd have a hell of a job turning say, the Aylesbury estate, into something resembling the Peak District if it's green hills you're desperate for!

' it is hard to allocate this fairly'
Well you seem to think just let market forces rip, and allocate it according to wealth.

In terms of who decides what cultures are worth preserving, there is a whole host of matrices and experts such as UNESCO.

Agreed. I can bet my bottom dollar also that those ‘DFLs’ buying massive house, range rovers and being racist etc weren't born or grew up in London either.

I really think there is a big difference between properties that are let out for most of the year to holidaymakers and those whose owners leave them empty nearly the whole year round so that they and their friends and family can use them for a few weeks of the year.

Although holiday makers might be fewer during the winter months it's likely that a true holiday home will have some takers. Second home owners are much more likely to only stay during the nicer months of the year and will stay in their own homes during the colder months or go somewhere else in the world for warmth or skiiing.

Personally I would support very heavy taxation for those who own a second or third home but leave it empty for the majority of the year. At least then the money raised can be used to help those less lucky in life.

It is simply not economically possible for people to be traditional fishermen or farmers in expensive areas. The fishermen and farmers that once populated London learnt this early on as have many other generations of people in other towns and cities in this country and around the world. If you have a desperate desire to farm or fish then you have to go where these things are viable otherwise you will forever be impoverished and relying on state handouts to make your livelihood pay. It is the ultimate on entitlement to believe that anyone should be able to make a living in anyway that they see fit in any places they want to.

It absolutely is a privilege to live where lots of other people would love to live. Not only do you benefit from living in such a lovely place but you are at liberty to move to a cheaper and less desirable area and if you happen to own a house already you will be quids in.

Nope I never said that. Of course market forces will be the dominant force as this is how almost all resource is allocated in our capitalist society and economy. Unless you have some kind of revolution then I don't see this changing anytime soon. I always said affordable housing should be available for key workers but this shouldn't be ear marked for local people.

Experts aren't in a position to declare one culture is more important than another. They can only express a view as it is inherently subjective and can evolve. Take the Curry Mile for instance in Manchester. It is a relatively modern cultural landmark that is nationally renowned but it displaced another culture to exist. Same goes with multicultural areas of London and other major cities. They often have their own culture forged from their inhabitants. Inevitably though some traditional British working class culture has been lost to allow these to thrive.