Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

Is having a second home in this country ever justifiable?

282 replies

Zog · 11/02/2007 18:18

Given the amount of houses that we are told needs to be built to keep up with demand? Are they a luxury that is becoming unsustainable, like cheap air travel?

OP posts:
Coolmama · 11/02/2007 20:46

Expat, that is certainly a fair point, but I do think that the problem cannot be entirely laid at the door of second-home-owners.

expatinscotland · 11/02/2007 20:47

No, developers are part of the prob, too.

Seriously, if you've ever tried to move to one of these places, as a normal person and not a second home owner, it's eye-opening to say the least.

paulaplumpbottom · 11/02/2007 20:51

I have a second home, to be honest its those of us who have our second homes in this village that keep it going. It would have died off years ago as its too far for people to commute. So I don't think its wrong.

Agree with Expat about the Buy to Lets. Its weird.

Coolmama · 11/02/2007 20:55

I think the problem with house prices has far more to do with people who work in the city, earn city money and then live in the country. wya more dangerous IMO

moondog · 11/02/2007 21:32

Even more horrid in a way when people buying up swathes of Bulgaria and similar.
Stop being so fecking greedy!!!!

southeastastra · 11/02/2007 21:34

and dubai, the world is becoming a playground for the rich and sod anyone else!

HeartOnMyGreensleeve · 11/02/2007 21:35

Nothing new about that.

moondog · 11/02/2007 21:36

Dubai is vile.
Naffest place in the world.

moondog · 11/02/2007 21:36

Although a lot to be said for keeping tasteless second home owners corralled.....

ILoveBeingWelshBoris · 11/02/2007 21:38

Was hoping Moondog would be about

moondog · 11/02/2007 21:39
Grin
southeastastra · 11/02/2007 21:43

dubai seems to be the new florida

Blondilocks · 11/02/2007 21:49

I don't see a problem with it at all. Our village has more full time residents than part time ones & the shop still died.

I intend to have a few buy-to-let/holiday let type houses, hopefully one abroad too.

If nobody owned second houses where would all the people who rent live? Where would the people who can only afford self catering in the UK type holidays go?

bran · 11/02/2007 21:50

How far does this immorality stretch? Is it also immoral to have a country house as a main home and a second home in the city? Is it immoral for someone to buy their (only) house in beautiful/popular area that they like because they can afford it, even though they weren't born there/don't have connections to the area?

moondog · 11/02/2007 21:52

Britain as a nation obsessed with home ownership.Rest of Europe less so.My sister lived in France (Martinique now) and rents/rented for years.

I do wonder though who owns all these rented homes!

Carmenere · 11/02/2007 21:53

I just don't get the Dubai thing at all. I suspect it may all go tits up in a couple of years anyway. I wouldn't buy there.

bran · 11/02/2007 21:53

Mind you, I can't see the problem with self-catering holidays at all. It seems to me that the lots of them are in places that otherwise wouldn't have been turned into dewellings at all (outbuildings on farms etc) so surely they can only be a bonus to the local economy. Even if the people staying in them don't buy anything or use any services the rent that they pay will go back into the local economy.

Sobernow · 11/02/2007 21:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Coolmama · 11/02/2007 22:01

so you are saying that nobody should ever own more than one home?

2ManyPimms · 11/02/2007 22:01

Thats all very well and good but it is a free market after all.

DominiConnor · 11/02/2007 22:01

To me it begs the question, to whom it needs to be justified ?
I pick up elements of both inverted and actual snobbery here. As in
I am a world traveller, learning local culture.
You are a vistor.
"they" are tourists.

Same applies to 2nd homes. The types in the countryside alliance don't seem to march much in support of peopel who live in crap inner city slums.
I don't have any right to decide who my neighbours have. They are under no obligation to support what I define as the local culture, tghat way lies the small town bigotry that used to bedevil much of Britain.

And no, I don't have a 2nd home.

bran · 11/02/2007 22:03

So do you also disapprove of people who have bigger houses than they need Sobernow? Or people who have a big garden?

Carmenere · 11/02/2007 22:03

What about developments overseas that bring tourism and hence jobs and wealth to otherwise very poor areas. They also drive up the price of lcal property giving locals more equity in their own properties.

Twinklemegan · 11/02/2007 22:07

Well not in my book, but then we can barely afford our first home

Aefondkiss · 11/02/2007 22:09

I have a relative who owns a 2nd home, that her and her dp built, near their own home, and they live in a very remote part of scotland, it is a main income for them, she works pt and dp is self employed,.... so 2nd homes for people who need an income to survive in the middle of nowhere, okay?

i don't agree in general, but that maybe because we can't afford to buy our 1st house at the prices they are now, but even if we could afford one I cannot imagine buying one, unless it was a remote shack that dh would want to visit fr fishing etc, but even then...nope

Swipe left for the next trending thread