Is having a second home in this country ever justifiable?

[Zog]

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?

sb - it's not the shopping in shops thing that offended me - it was the allusion (maybe earlier) that people who have second homes bring all their shopping with them from Waitrose and do not support the shops in the village etc -

Assumptions are made about me, my life and the way I live based on one fact - that is what I find offensive.

I'm sure the French really appreciate having wanky South Easterners around them, acting like they're doing them and their country a favour.

"It's not the case that only the left care by any means."

No, I would never say that. I'm not a party political person.

uhm, I don't agree with you about French people but I'm getting sucked into a virtual life and I really should work!

'pointydog, I believe the free market best protects those at the bottom, though.'

Yes, I mean, WHO did away with all those lovely working conditions during the Victorian era? Did they not realise that free market was really helping all those children at the bottom by forcing them to work all hours in unsafe conditions for buttons?

but who am I depriving?

i'm in the 'it's about how they are used' camp.

i live in a group of streets where every house (bar one) is occupied pretty much every day, and that is to me the first requirement of a community.

i try to be reasonable about it but i loathe the whole concept, which is just inverted snobbery as DC suggests. i doubt my opinion bothers most 2ndhomers.

I "get" the concept -

sorry Sobernow, am going to have to bow out of this chat - can't carry on without giving out any personal info - so will call it quits for tonight -
Good night all - has been really interesting.

DOn't agree. You earn a lot, own three houses therefore make work for painters, plumbers, cleaners, gardeners who service your homes which makes them better off than if three poor people had lived in those homes and not spent money on those services because they do the work themselves. if your owning 3 houses means someone wanting to move nearby can't find one then the free market means someone will build new houses - therefore your owning 3 increases the housing stock ultimately once you die and 2 or 3 are put up for sale plus the new ones have been built.

Vast bits of the UK don't have many people in them. Other parts like London are crammed full of people. It's not a simple point that there are too many people on every acre of the country. If we get too crammed or it's not nice here people leave. My grandfather paid for 3 brothers to move to Canada in the 1920s for example and conversely in the 1840s some of my relatives moved to the NEast because they would otherwise have died in the potato famine. I don't see why we need to intervene in markets. They work fine, within reason, left to their own devices as long as we have some planning controls I suppose.

Reading between the lines, I think the second house Coolmama has is probably not one that a person/family struggling to get on the housing ladder would offer on. And, if that is the case, who is she depriving?

But if you apply the same argument you would have people in larger houses move to smaller ones or share them with other families.

Thinking Romania under its previous regime or should I turn my mind to North Korea or the jolly public housing I saw in Communist Budapest years ago.... Actualyl the benevolent perhaps capitalist Quakers for their workers probably achieved the best social housing.

I agree with OrmIrian, it depends on what the house is used for. If it's only used occasionally and stands empty for most of the year then I agree it's a waste.

If it's rented out on long-term or short-term leases then I don't see a problem as at least that way you are providing a service by letting accomodation to someone.

My FIL does this, he has two houses in London which he rents out on long term leases and two houses in South Africa which are also rented out.

I'm just glad I live in a city where the phrase "incomer" isn't used. Sounds so welcoming My parent have a second home, initially it was rented (tied to a job that my dad had) and we spent every family holiday there for about 30 years. My parents also lent it to various friends and family, expesially those who were otherwise unable to have a holiday (my mother being a closet socialist). It turned out when my dad retired from the job and they had to hand the cottage back that it wasn't really habitable without a vast amount of money being spent on it (my memories of winter there were cold and damp!). They then bought a house nearby, which entailed rebuilding it. Now it's not in a commuter or retirement part of the word (although quite closer to the fire bombers) but the local farmers appear quite welcoming, indeed after 40 years they are friends, and I would say that my parent's city home is probably their second home now. I've never heard a city person complaining about second homers. I guess that's mainly becasue the distortions in the London market are caused by city bonuses, and there are still plenty of cheap (if maybe nasty) places to live.

Who cares? Why on earth would somebody have to justify owning a second home?

If you can afford one, want one and can enjoy getting away on weekends - knock yourself out and buy another one.

I don't understand what this would have to do with anybody else, or for that matter why somebody would take issue with a person owning two homes.

so is it ok to own a second home in a city then?