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!

Try being a born and bred Londoner 😮

No I never said that. I said it is an issue in rural areas that farming land is being sold off for (usually expensive) housing and that isn't sustainable. That houses are built with no thought to local infrastructure or that if we contune to sell off all the farming land that there will be repercussions. I never said the countryside should only be for farmers..

however without housing control, the CI would have the exact same problems as the desirable places in the UK

they are as affordable as most of the UK for locals

The alternative is supporting unearned and state subsidised intergenerational privilege. I am shocked how many people can't understand this!

How to tell people you are entitled without telling people you are entitled.
JFC.

Alternatively, the government and companies could invest in these areas so that the younger generations can travel to work near home and get a decent wage for it. Whilst also improving the infrastructure of the area.

But the OP doesn't want this as they would then not have such a nice area to live in.

Yes, it's not racist or xenophobic or nimbyish to worry when a town with 20,000 inhabitants has big estates built on the outskirts with another 5000 homes and no thought about roads, new schools or medical care. Those 5000 homes won't be bought by locals, they'll largely be bought by incomers.

I know because I was one of them! I bought a new build house in the area I live in now and had no connection with the area, it was just handy to commute to London. I lived there for four years.

As for Jersey it used to be even more restrictive - you couldn't even rent, you could only have a licence for a room. Of course if you're rich you can do what you like. There are a few houses that are open market but they tend to be very expensive. An acquaintance had family there and when her aunt died she inherited her house in Gorey. She couldn't move and live in it, she had to sell it to a local. Even with the restrictions the population has grown to about 100,000 people. Goodness knows where they all live - as a pp said, prices are not remotely cheap.

They are significantly higher.

OP, are you Kemi Badenoch?

your viewpoint is utterly depressing. If you’ve already bought and enjoy living in one of these chocolate box villages, what the fuck do you care whether locals are given a helping hand to stay there if they have ties? I’ll repeat my assertion that you just don’t want someone to get something subsidised that you had to pay full price for. A true blue view.

I care for the sake of future people like me who aren't lucky enough to be born here but may want to live here in the future. Why on earth can't they? Why should it be made harder for them because some people already here think they are entitled to live here forever? My kids are born and bred here but I absolutely don't think they deserve to be subsidised to stay here.

If that makes me like Kemi then so be it. I didn't know she prized social mobility and equality so much but hey ho.

You really do not understand some areas do you. Unless you are a fisherman and a farmer you have no idea if it is economical viable - I am saying that locals who farm certain areas do not see the priviledge that you seem so sure they must be because they were born in a desirable area. Are you really saying hill farmers should move to another part of the country in order to farm so they make more money and also to sell their farm because they will be "quids in". Your comments astonish me.

Are you insane? Are you forgetting I live here and have kids? Why on earth would I be against investment into the area? If anyone had a vested interest in this happening then it would be me. Unfortunately I live in the real world though and know the amount of investment required to achieve this would be unaffordable and quite frankly the government has other more pressing priorities.

Some people move away from meat - go to the majority of the areas in the UK where meat is produced and you will find no move away from meat at all.

So the adaptation of farming communities is people who have no idea telling hill farmers to grow crops? Try driving a combine harvester up and down a mountain.

You sound like you're suggesting others should suffer because you have. It's a very common mentality, but not a helpful one.

I run a business. Farming is a business. Yes, I do understand about viability and how this can be impacted by location. Some businesses are not viable in some locations. It's as simple as that! Sometimes the nature of the location changes and this changes the viability of the business.

Anyone with a jot of business acumen understands this and you really don't want a load of unsustainable lame duck businesses. The hill farmer may well have to relocate as many businesses do every single day.

"Why should it be made harder for them because some people already here think they are entitled to live here forever?"

@Bumpitybumper Yet you feel it is fine for locals to possibly have to give way to your children - your children are entitled to live in your new area but locals are not.

I am beginning to think this whole thread is a way to garner opinions and information to enable a "the majority feel higher taxes, restrictions, bans etc on pretty areas, second homes,holiday lets, entitled and priviledge locals".

Big problem here in London, with schools closing as a result, too.

But it's a massive problem in London, children not being able to afford to move out, generations living in overcrowded homes.

Anyone with a jot of business acumen realises that farming is reliant on people with a sense of stewardship of the land for future generations. Very little farming is 'viable' without subsidies but presumably you are so against any planning or state intervention that they might as well concrete over the farms, turn it all over to data farms, destroy all the beauty. And then where would you be? Your attitude is disgusting and ignorant - tourism and populations are managed all over the world, your disingenuous whining and 'detest' for people's real concerns is so selfish.

Farming isn't a simple profit/loss business, it's so much more. It is about stewardship and preservation of a landscape. Trust me, many of our "pretty" areas wouldn't be like that without farming. You might run a business but you have zero clue about rural affairs or what goes into maintaining an area so that it attracts people like yourselves.

I would really like you to tell a hill farmer in upland areas of the UK, who is 5th or more generation to farm the area, where the stock is hefted that they should just move to another area as it is just a business.

You can be pro farming at an industry level whilst recognising that not every individual farm is viable even with substantial subsidy. It is the nature of the beast although you seem incapable of recognising nuance so I don't know why I'm wasting my time debating this with you. You can carry on believing that farming should be just about the only industry that isn't subject to local economic factors if you want but ultimately this does nobody any good, least of all the farmers.

Farming causes substantial damage to biodiversity and nature and there are very real ethical concerns about things like animal welfare. You are promoting it as a wholly good which is disingenuous in itself so forgive me if I won't take your self serving lecture on board.

Is that like your self serving lecture about people you "detest"?

You’re surely winding us up OP. A farmer has to relocate because their farm is near an area that has become popular, driving up prices in recent years?

I’d love to know where you live now, from the way you are speaking and the way you dismissed @Pyroleus’s comments I don’t think it can be anywhere particularly rural.

Also loving your take on being privileged. I grew up in a pretty area very popular with hill walkers - there was one bus every 2 hours, no cinema, no swimming pool, the local school was terrible, there are barely any jobs and the phone signal was horrendous. As a teenager I couldn’t wait to get away. Possibly some of the local attitudes you talk about come from people knowing their children’s options are limited and being worried for their futures.

Anyone who divides the world into ‘economically viable’ and ‘economically unviable’ isn’t capable of grown up, nuanced thinking.

Margaret Thatcher subscribed to this view. How’s that working out for Britain?

I wonder what business the OP runs, that she can compare herself to farmers and fishermen?

I won't need to tell them. The economic reality of the viability of their business will decide if the family can continue to farm the area or not. If they can't afford to live in the area anymore then that will be that and the hills may well be returned to nature or farmed by somebody else. They have no automatic entitlement to farm those hills in the same way that none of us have an entitlement to any livelihood.