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!

@Pyroleus I applaud you.

I'm torn on this, I do think anyone should be able to visit anywhere however I also feel that if an area is a tourist "hotspot" then while that community will benefit from some tourist trade there will also be other pressures on services in that area as a result. For example pressure on hospitals and healthcare services, transport and infrastructure, and policing etc plus higher levels of asb and littering/dog fouling/ noise issues etc so an environmental impact as well. This needs to be offset somehow so its not negatively impacting the local community who do live there full time. I also think it's unfair that so many scenic places are filled up with holiday homes that are only occupied part time, driving prices up for the people who actually need to live there full time to work or care for family etc. Or short term lets which can create a 'party town' feel which local residents won't want while lining the pockets of people or businesses who may not even live in the same country.

In hot spots people should be forced to sell their houses cheaply to other local people.

The people from those areas should be banned from purchasing a house anywhere else.

See how ridiculous the reverse sounds.

As long as it's not a second home or a holiday home (which does ruin communities) then I don't see the issue either. I was fortunate enough to be born in a really beautiful area, I don't think people born in crappy, run down cities that have little employment opportunities should be condemned to live there forever. The housing market, lack of social and actually affordable housing, stagnating wages etc is the issue rather than people wanting to move somewhere nicer.

I'm sorry but I believe we are all selfish when we choose where we want to live. Those who live in beautiful places and want to be near family and friends are of course being selfish too! They are pursuing something that is in their interest in the same way I moved to this beautiful area to raise my family because it was in my interest to do so.

I think you see people like me though as having wants and needs that can equal those of people that happen to be raised in an area. The inequality stinks!

So if the son of a 'born and bred type' from Cornwall or similar gets amazing qualifications and decides to move to Spitalfields to take up his £200k banking job in the City, should the Spitalfields yokel locals moan that he is pushing up prices in Spitalfields, while their kids are having to move out into Essex? As if! Things work both ways, otherwise everyone is stuck.

OP, I don’t disagree with you, but I think you’ve created an argument that doesn’t exist.

Yes people from the pretty places dislike outsiders coming and buying up properties and pricing them out.

But most of this is aimed at second home owners or airbnbs, which form by far the bulk of the problem. Not people coming to live permanently, do a local job, make it their home - like you want to.

If second (third/fourth etc) properties were taxed and regulated much more heavily then I suspect a lot of the problems, and resentment, would disappear.

Of course there would be less tourism too but the “pretty place” locals sound like they’d be ok with that.

I think there is an idea in many people’s minds, whenever they look at a pretty and touristy place, that “In the old days before tourism, this place was a farming and fishing village” etc.

And the thing is, sometimes it’s true and sometimes it’s not; some touristy places were pretty much purpose-built for tourism (as in, there was very very little there before leisure tourism took off in the mid-19th century). No, it’s not true of all touristy places, before I invite a bunch of angry responses.

In places like this, it’s harder to make the argument against tourism, as the place may not be very well located for anything else.

I think there would be less anger about second homes if it was easier to purpose-build your own second-home in attractive places. In some parts of Japan, you get little neighborhoods of besso (second homes) in seaside areas, mostly built by the owners themselves. Nobody seems to care much that they are empty for part of the year, as there is plenty of other housing. Perhaps it’s hard in the UK because a) the UK makes building new buildings and self-build so difficult, and b) the UK tends to really love and value old buildings.

I went on holiday to a tropical australian island recently. The locals were so welcoming and lovely, even though the island was clearly 90% tourists. I mean super friendly. The bus drivers seemed to regard being a tour guide / stand up comic as part of their duties.

At the same time, the protests against tourism were happening in europe. I mentioned this contrast to an aussie friend. Who just replied "they were clearly hit hard by the pandemic".

It made me think. Those people in beautiful tourist towns with little other sources of income should be careful what they wish for regarding tourism.

Also lack of affordable housing and working infrastructure is a political issue that should be managed by councils and government. Being arsey to tourists won't help.

OP, your stance is nuts. Change 'UK tourist hotspot' to just 'UK' and apply your opinion to every person in world who lives in a more shitty country and would love to come here and live. Sometimes you just can't have what you want.

What makes me laugh is that the incomers - usually those with wealth - who buy because of the vibe of a place, then dismantle that vibe because they put the place out of reach of most ordinary folk.

I'm currently away in a tourist hotspot that is rammed in the private school holidays and then it's like a ghost town apart from weekends when the glitterati decamp from London in their flash cars. On Sunday night, ours was the only car left in the village. It was like we were the last people alive on earth. How can places not just survive, but thrive on this model?

Sorry bit I do think people who were born and grew up in a scenic area have more of a right to live and make their living there than outsiders.

So, despite the tourist industry, locals clearly aren't making much out of it where you are, are they? They don't where I live now. It's very poorly paid and seasonal to boot. I don't work in a tourism based industry either here or in the tourist hotspot I lived before. I couldn't afford to. Where I live now, most of the tourism type jobs are advertised at minimum wage for 18 year olds. Very few people actually living in tourist areas who don't own businesses connected to tourism are working in the bulk of tourism related industries. The money isn't there. It's only there for the owners of the arcades, the restaurants, the coffee shops, or big attraction companies like Merlin.
I had 5 jobs to make ends meet at one point in the last place I lived. Tourism really doesn't bring a lot to the people who live and work in these areas. That's why most year-rounders either aren't doing it or trying to cash in on Airbnb.
A few people are making big money. As you have actually pointed out, it isn't the majority.
As I said before, that's not to say I don't agree with a lot of what you say. But if you actually talk to the local locals, many will tell you tourism isn't paying their bills.
Out of interest, do you work in tourism?

I completely agree OP.
Similarly when we lived in London people born there would complain when they couldn't afford to live there/were given social housing elsewhere due to demand. Welcome to the world the rest of us live in! You choose where you work and live and if your kids can't afford to live there that's just life! You cut your cloth.
It's not fair on those like yourself- no one should be forced to live somewhere unpleasant or pay through the roof just on principles that locals 'deserve' it more!

What areas have "whole villages" under a S106 with local connection restriction? This just isn't happening in any great quantity to affect you, OP.

As a native Londoner I find it frustrating that people in other parts of the country take such a dim view of Londoners leaving the city and moving elsewhere. Yet when their darling DC grow up to be very clever and want a job at one of the big 4, the banks, the law firms etc they are happy to ship them off here without a care in the world so their career can thrive which has over time pushed the property and rent prices through the roof and driven the natives out. Works both ways.

I also think holiday homes are fine if in use for large chunks of time. Without them then the tourist trade would really suffer as lots of people simply don't want hotels anymore

If people don't want hotels/B&Bs then they'll have to camp or stay in a lodge. Lodges are fine because they don't take away homes from locals (you could take the argument further and say the land could be used for homes, but it's quite different to my mind than taking houses out of residential use).

Some houses just aren't suitable for residential use, and then it's fine to use them for holiday homes, so even if you got rid of a lot of holiday homes, there would still be some left.

If people want to move to desirable areas from other areas (whether desirable or not) they can do. Restrictions are for holiday and second homes, not for people who actually want to live in the area. The only time there may be restrictions on permanent occupation is where there are new houses built and then they should be for locals and incomers will just have to wait their turn.

Nobody has a right to live in a particular place but I think locals get first dibs.

A large part of our housing crisis is caused by the fact that over a million homes are second and holiday homes.

Shall we ban any kind of migration all together?

Sorry bit I do think people who were born and grew up in a scenic area have more of a right to live and make their living there than outsiders.

Not in non scenic areas?

There is definitely an issue with empty homes/2nd homes but banning any migration is ridiculous.

I don't think that's true.

Where I live there's no doubt that prices are driven up by people selling rabbit hutches in London at silly prices and then buying a nice 4 bed family home here.

It's not young professionals driving up the prices in London, it's the fact that so much housing stock is bought by overseas investors and lies empty. I think as many as 1/4 of homes in London are empty? It's an incredible statistic anyway.

But most people moving to Cornwall and the Lakes aren't from London anyway, they are from all over the UK (and overseas).

We do seem to be conflating two different issues here which isn’t helping. The OP mention tourists but we now seem to be including people who’ve moved here to live. Which may cause issues but those issues are insignificant in relation to housing being used as tourist accommodation or being left empty for most of the year.

Just out of interest, OP, how long have you lived in the tourist area you are in now?

I'm currently away in a tourist hotspot that is rammed in the private school holidays and then it's like a ghost town apart from weekends when the glitterati decamp from London in their flash cars

They are probably not Londoners.

Who is selling the holiday homes to the outsiders though?

The real problems arise when tourism creeps into formerly residential zones. residential housing needs to be preserved. That doesn’t mean it has to be preserved for people with a legacy connection to the area. It just means not allowing the housing stock to be bought up and converted into a mix of airbnb and houses that sit empty 50 weeks of the year. Residential housing should remain on the market only for people who want to live in the community the majority of the year.

Tourism should be in commercial areas. People who rent places to stay on holiday should be paying taxes on their temporary housing. This gives the community money to help run the unsexy services needed to make the area so tourist friendly, like extra refuse pickup and more lifeguards.

The only time there may be restrictions on permanent occupation is where there are new houses built and then they should be for locals and incomers will just have to wait their turn

Just to clarify this comment - I didn't mean ANY new houses, but some are built to be affordable for local people (though what is classes as affordable is usually laughable).