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!

Some of these responses remind of the crazy lockdown threads “there are so many people in my town”, “we are overrun with Londoners”.

Now realistically Londoners didn’t wake up and feel the urge to be a Game of Thrones extra & head North or whatever for Christmas. People were going back to live with family…

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.

I agree.

We even get it where I live which is on a popular footpath and people come from London on the train (not far away) at the weekend to go for walks etc, and they spend money in shops and pubs. Yet locals moan about the "DFLs" (Down From London). The way it's going there won't be any local pubs and shops if people don't come and spend money at the weekend.

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

Not really. The UK has few second homes by the standards of our peer countries. Most comparable countries have far more second home ownership. I’ve no dog in this first personally, by the way; I can’t think of anything more tiresome than having a second home, but we all like different things.

Who is selling the holiday homes to the outsiders though?

Quite

Yeah quite. I left the Facebook group for the neighbouring village as they were moaning about "outsiders" walking there in lockdown. I live in the next village and it's very much on my dog walking route as it's only two miles. Ridiculous attitude.

People sell to whoever they can sell to, don't they.

When MIL died, her house was sold to someone who was going to rent it out. We felt a bit guilty about that, but we needed to get rid of it. I am sure the same applies to anyone selling a house anywhere. You can't consider ethics if you want to sell something, especially if you need or want to sell quickly.

Thinking back on it, I don't think it was so bad as it was for permanent occupation and she didn't live in a particularly desirable area anyway. And I suspect a lot of second home owners sell onto more second home owners. But still, the ideal is to sell to someone who is going to live in the house themselves.

Yep.

Oh i remember all those threads on here as well. And the silly posts about cars not being "local".

There is a difference between somebody buying a property in a “lovely place” to actually work and live there.

Or as a 2nd (3rd, 4th…) home or simply an investment opportunity.

The latter are generally considered to be more problematic.

But if we’re simply talking about the former, it’s essentially a discussion about potentially pricing locals out of their own towns, villages and neighbourhood (aka gentrification) and mobility (social and geographical mobility).

Goodness knows where those stats come from. I don't know anyone overseas with a second home. I do know that they are quite common in the Nordic countries, but they are lodges in rural areas and aren't places that could be used for full time residential use anyway - eg the ones in Finland don't have flush toilets.

I get your point but tourism can be quite disruptive to the lives of locals. I live in Greenwich, the streets are so narrow, the train station is tiny with one lift and there are no public toilets. The crossings are too small for the crowds of people that need to cross the road etc. Despite that it's always choc full of tourists every single weekend. There's even always a massive queue for the swings in the park 🫣 I do think people should be allowed to go about their business without being overcrowded/ having that constant frantic vibe of too many people/constant tourism. Plus the shops are catered to tourists for example we don't have a proper supermarket.

I disagree. If lower-cost housing is not protected for the locals, we shall lose the country. Rich Russians and Arabs and the like will buy all the best places and what will be left for a native teaching assistant? And why?

The problem is, through no fault of my own, I wasn't 'born and brought up' somewhere. We moved a bit as a child. I never lived near my family or had those kinds of roots, a fact I have struggled with a lot. Where should we 'nomads' go? I have a strong connection to where I spent the majority of my formative years, but I would have no 'local rights' there. I have no real 'local rights' anywhere except one small town I have never lived in and have no wish to live in now my remaining family there has died.
So where do you put me?

...but we shouldn't have tourists in residential property while locals have to live in hotels or camp because they can't find a residential property. That is the wrong way around!

There is currently an argument about the effects of the second home tax in some parts of Wales like Tenby.

It has reduced the number of homes being used for AirBnB and second homes. But there has been an increase in people moving into the area to live there full time. A positive trend, you might thing, but the people moving in tend to be elderly. They don’t spend much and use a lot of expensive government services. It’s not clear this is a win for these areas.

People sell to whoever they can sell to, don't they.

Surely it depends if price is more important than ethics. I just don’t get the logic of criticising the buyers but not the sellers. My relative only sold to a local family and refused a developer.

Omg I will never forget those 😂

The LONDONERS are escaping and ruining Christmas!!!!! Errrrr no, we’re all with our London based families… in London.

Well maybe they had the luxury of waiting for someone local who wasn't a developer to come along. It's probably actually easier to act ethically in a highly desirable area.

I think the problem with “Families should stand on principles and sell at a ‘fair price’ to a local instead” is: Suppose I do this, and sell to Jane, a local at a fair price. There is nothing to stop Jane then turning around and deciding to sell it to a Down From Londoner for a vastly inflated price six months later. So the house still ends up being a holiday home, and the only thing my principles have done is made me look and feel like a right mug.

@Riplongboi 😆😆😆 did they think the “Londoners” who had gone home had turfed locals out of their houses or moved in without permission?!

My inlaws have a "second home", one that DH's granny used to live in. It's only an hour away, they don't rent it out but let family and friends go down and use it when it's available and we used to go down there for a cheap break several times a year. I'm going with my mates soon. Inlaws also go there a lot when the weather is good and to maintain it. Everyone who goes there spends money in local shops and pubs (and pays a fortune to the council in parking fees). I don't see anything wrong with that TBH.

Wherever you live now?

I am not "local" to where I live now but I've lived here long enough to qualify for local homes for local people schemes if I needed it. I did grow up in a touristy desirable area but as I've not lived there for years I wouldn't qualify there.

Absolutely. You can’t say it’s ok for the sellers to disregard ethics due to need (or no doubt greed in some cases), but say the buyers are unethical. If locals want to maintain the area for fellow locals, it’s in their absolute power to do that. They can’t have it both ways.

That is also a very good point.