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!

We have official minority status like the Welsh, Irish and Scots
https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/people-and-communities/equality-and-diversity/cornish-national-minority/

Well no, not really like the Welsh Irish and Scots at all. Since they're different nations.
If Cornwall gets independence THEN you'll be like them. But until then you're English. Sorry.

How on earth did you manage to interpret Yoga's post like that? Not what she said at all.

And i notice twetmerf hasnt mentioned the offensive term of emmet

I can understand why people who have lived in a lovely place become territorial and feel their right to remain there trumps people moving in and inflating costs but unfortunately its a fact of capitalist life and our society. At some point a local person sold to a non local person no doubt at a good profit and that's that.

The modern world with all the knowledge passed around , images, reviews etc etc has its good points and for people in chocolate box villages its bad points.

Emmet is used lightheartedly, only mildly derogatively, like grockle elsewhere in the UK. It's meant as a joke. We don't go after incomers with pitchforks, even after they buy up a lot of housing stock. Anyone offended doesn't understand Cornish humour.

Some people think emmet is offensive and some don't. It's a Cornish word for anyone who isn't from Cornwall and is used interchangeably with foreigner. Someone from Devon could be called emmet or foreigner and whether it's derogatory depends on the feelings of who said it. Some people use it in a derogatory way and others will be neutral. It's a term that has been around for many years and isn't going away.

Ah bants n lols eh? never hurt anyone - i'm not sure the user of the term is in a position to say whether its offensive

Maybe it should go the same way as plenty of other terms that were once acceptable in our society and are no longer

Like the people who rock up at Camborne train station on a Wednesday?

This is true but we don't have to be at the mercy of capitalism, there are things governments can do about over tourism and air BNBs or foreign investor only owned property that sits empty. Other countries are doing something about this and I think it has to be looked at here considering the problematical housing crisis we have. Where I live it has really changed the make up of the place as families are moving away, schools are closing as no children to fill them and Londoners are pricing people out of the areas as they themselves have been priced out of London so it is this trickle down impact that if you looked at the situation especially a Labour government like in Amsterdam or like in Denmark.

I think YABU. As someone who comes from one of these areas, moved away and is now back- the issues are really quite thorny. The issue isn’t about locals not wanting others to come because we want to horde the beauty for ourselves, or some such nonsense- yes, we can appreciate the beauty of the area- but it’s far more about being able to live where you come from, to be near to your family, friends and support network. Sadly, in many of these areas local people cannot do this and it is damaging communities. In some cases, it is decimating them and leaving behind a pretty shell, but with the culture, history and the things that made them different stripped away and little else of what made them thriving places to live remains. Often the areas are gentrified and with a lovely facade for the tourists, but ghost towns outside that. And a lot of the natural beauty is becoming damaged and eroded by irresponsible and poorly managed tourism. Locals are guilty of capitalising on this in some cases, of course they are- but it’s all to often also exploited by outside interests and those with deep wallets wanting to make money, to hell with the damage caused to the area or it’s communities (and as they have no stake in the area, most couldn’t care less about it, even if they were aware).

The biggest issues with a lot ”incomers” is that they come and buy up properties at inflated prices driving up house prices out of reach of locals. Because in these areas wages can be low- in rural locations, for instance, it is common for a lot of employment to be on the lower end of the pay scale. It also means it can be a struggle to employ people in essential jobs such as teachers, carers, district nurses, agricultural/farm work, as well as the more tourist based jobs because they cannot afford to live locally. In our area, for example, the local community hospital had to shut for a period in time because they could not attract/keep staff and was absolutely partly due to not being able to afford local housing, with commuting times and costs making it an unattractive job for those living further away. It has now opened in a very different and reduced capacity and has been a real blow to the healthcare provision locally. There are issues in all areas of services locally- from health and social care, to schools and even lots of the staff in hospitality are seasonal staff only, often brought in from elsewhere.

In our area, a significant number of people retire here- this is not uncommon and screws the age demographics, which is not great in and of itself. However, this also places additional stresses on local service provision, especially when they lack a local support network (and many do)- the need for community services in our area is high but far, far outstrips supply (see above issue with not being able to attract staff for essential services as they cannot afford to live in the area) and it is causing real problems. If we had a more “normal”demographic, with more affordable housing then this would be less of a problem- I’m not saying there would not still be difficulties as there are all sorts of complex reasons behind the problems with health and social care- but the situation we have is exacerbating them.

Another issue is that so many houses are bough as holiday homes, with the owners staying for only a few weeks a year (if at all), or they are bought to be used as holiday lets or air bnb’s. Whole villages are becoming soulless, ghost towns outside of main tourist seasons and they cannot sustain a proper community year round. So many businesses can only operate in tourist season and communities are being decimated. Schools are shutting, local amenities and transport links being closed or cut because there is not enough year round demand. It’s tragic to see once busy villages and small town becoming pretty, quaint little shells.

Its not just 'incomers' who own holiday homes, locals do too

These are real, and deeply serious issues. It's just not true that all that can be done is shrug it all off as capitalism as other posters have done - there's legislation and policies that can help as has happened in other places that have become very difficult for full-time residents and their quality of life. I hope people are able to lobby government and local politicians to try to address some of this.

A while ago I was listening to the radio and a guy was complaining about how unfair it was that people were moving into the area where he grew up and pricing him out of the market so that he couldn't bring up his childen where he grew up.

As the program continued it became clear to me that where he was talking about was not just the area where I grew up, but the very road. As an adult I had to move away as I simply couldn't compete with what incomers were able to pay to live there. So he grew up there because his family had out-priced me, as new families were outpricing him in turn. I made my home elsewhere, but my DC have had to move away to find jobs and houses that work for them.

The world turns. Some forms of work simply don't make enough money at certain times for people who do them to live in an area, and other people move in with different employment opportunities. The original person takes his skills, ideas and experience and uses them in another area, and someone else has to find an opportunity in a new place. And so on and so on.

No one has the right to live in a particular place. We each have to make our way and find a different situation if we can't in our orginal one.

No one has the right to live in a particular place. We each have to make our way and find a different situation if we can't in our orginal one

Which is why we have hundreds of people arriving in small boats every day

It's not quite the same as the kinds of communities where people don't even lock their doors though is it?

Just let people build more holiday homes if they want them? That way, nobody needs to be priced out of anything, and there will be plenty of full-timers left in the area.

Off-season, the HHs can just sit there quietly until they are used again.

I say this as someone with zero desire to ever own a holiday home anywhere. Who on earth wants to feel vaguely guilted about spending every holiday in the same place, and then have to spend quite a lot of your holiday pulling weeds, fixing wiring issues and dealing with damp etc. when you are there? I don't want to do the housework in the one home that I do own, let alone do two lots of housework and have to do some of it when I'm on holiday.

But land isn't limitless, and so if more than 50% of the buildings in a particular place are holiday homes that 'just sit there quietly' the place will be full of empty houses and massive seasonal population increase and decrease. That means despite there being actual houses that people could live in all year around, they can't afford to. The population decline leads to the closure of schools and withdrawal of essential services, making places unviable for long-term living.

Oh, is that the only/the correct definition of a high-trust community? Right you are then.

Also in many 'picturesque' areas planning is very tight. It is far easier to get planning for anything related to tourism in the national park than for homes.

But there's no point building new homes if we have hundreds of thousands of empty ones.

Empty in what sense?

You mean holiday homes that are empty part of the year?

Or you mean homes that are empty year-round because they are abandoned (Durham pit villages etc?)

Or homes that are empty because they were bought as a speculation?

I went to a comp in Devon and we had a lad from Cornwall start. He said he thought everyone would hate him because he was Cornish, which seemed very strange to us. We couldn't care less that he came from the next county along!

I guess the Cornish can be quite insular, some people hate everyone and assume everyone hates them. Emmet means ant so probably not that affectionate really, I've never heard the term said though. I can understand the Cornish getting completely fucked off by all the tourists blocking up the tiny roads and Londoners buying up all the property so I can understand where the irritation comes from.

No, if the holiday homes that are built are additional to the normal housing stock, there is no reason to think that the normal population of permanent residents would be any lower than it would be if the houses had not been built.

If you have a 100 houses with 250 permanent residents living in them, then building an extra 50 houses (housing two people on average each) which are empty part of the time does not cause any of the 250 permanent residents to leave; why would it? They are not being pushed out.

All that will happen is that at the busiest time of year, the village would have about 350 residents, and at the quietest time of year, it would go back to having about 250 residents because the holidaymakers are not there.

This is literally how it tends to work where I live. Sometimes there are minor tensions about "holiday homes tend to get weeds etc. and it makes the area look messy," leading to demands that holiday home owners either come back more regularly to keep the place up to scratch or pay for hired help to weed and clean and maintain their places in between times, and some minor disagreements about those kinds of things. But nobody particularly gets priced out of their homes, and there is no especial feeling that it's "bad" to own a holiday home (even though it would be my worse nightmare TBH).

The UK is unusual for how few people have holiday homes. A far higher % of the population owns them in most European countries.

It's true that there can be concern about building on green spaces; at the end of the day, though, it's about tradeoffs. Taller and denser housing could be discussed as an alternative to green-space building, if there is real concern about this.