Second homes.

[justgeton]

Do you have strong views on people owning 2 properties..? A main home and somewhere else they happen to love and holiday there a lot.

It seems like a good investment, something I'd love, but there's been such bad press about 'second home owners' and I'd like to understand more about why it's frowned upon by some.

I presume it's not just sour grapes?!

Buying a second home in a beautiful place you enjoy visiting can have the effect of pushing up house prices for the local ( lower paid) work force making it difficult for them to afford property and if it's left empty when you aren't in it that's not great when it occurs in large numbers for the community.

This article is a good summary of some of the issues: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/31/cornwall-fightback-second-homes-house-prices-ban

[quote petherbridge]This article is a good summary of some of the issues: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/31/cornwall-fightback-second-homes-house-prices-ban[/quote]
Thank you. Interesting reading

No I don’t have a problem with it at all.
I don’t own a second home and will never own as much as a caravan.

Many people complaining about second home owners say that they are priced out of their home towns or that streets are full of empty houses.

I can’t afford to live in my home town - I just don’t earn enough. I also couldn’t afford to live in many places around the U.K. Beautiful towns near the sea are naturally more expensive than ordinary places. People are willing to pay a premium to own property in gorgeous areas of the country and it drives prices up. Many people have heaps of money so buy a second home.

I don’t think anyone has the right to claim a place as theirs just because they grew up there.

My Mum lives a popular holiday village. Most of the pretty cottages in the High St are dead in the winter. At least if people rent out their second homes it provides customers for the local shop and other amenities. Empty all the time except for the owners who pop up and bring all their food with them...adds nothing to the local economy.

Local people were pushed to the inland towns, the local school struggled and won't survive the next threat of closure, I don't think.

Local people wee priced / pushed out of the pretty cottages in prime locations, so now developers are using up green field sites to build new estates.

We have a housing shortage, we are a small island. If people own two homes. more have to be built for everyone else. Space, green land, more intensive housing in already overcrowded cities.

I do think it's wrong for people to have 2 homes when so many have none, or no chance of ever getting on the property ladder.

I have mixed views on this. In theory I am against it for many reasons to including driving up prices and forcing locals out of their home markets, adding to the rental market etc. However I have bought a house for DC to live in short term because they can't afford to live and pay rent. When they are ready to move on I'll sell it. It would probably make more sense financially to hold on to it and rent it out as I doubt it will sell at a profit but I have no interest in being a landlord. I wouldn't buy a holiday home.

I think it’s also important to remember that some people left their local towns/villages to work their socks off and climb up the career ladder in places like London. I can completely see why they’d want to own a place outside of the big smoke too.

Personally, I don’t think we’ll ever get one, though, as we just wouldn’t find the time to use it enough. It does seem like a waste to own a property that you can only stay in for 3 weeks a year.

I have no issue with people owning hoiliday homes so long as the locals can just build their home next to these home. What you see all too often is people complaining about new housing whilst buying a second home in the same village.

We do have a second home but we run it as a business and rent it out. We nominate the weeks we wish to use it. As 1/3 of the local population depend on tourism there has to be acceptance that such businesses bring in income. The guests support shops, attractions, restaurants etc. I support cleaners, builders and the local holiday agent,

If there was already highly paid work in the area, then local people would have bought the houses. There simply isn’t this type of employment. The people with money are mostly retired and local people are certainly not rich. I do accept house prices have gone up but the people coming in spend more and have a higher disposable income so it trickles down. Lots of younger people leave for better jobs elsewhere and return when they want a quieter life or work remotely.

I’m not apologising for us having enough money to buy another home. We have inherited money. We have spent it as we think fit and we pay taxes. You can look at many desirable areas in the uk and find young people cannot buy houses there. It’s not a given that you can afford a seaside cottage or a detached house in the SE. There is no doubt well paid people such as doctors will afford such property but it’s difficult for ordinary folk in lots of places.

It is possible to buy a second home in an area where second homes are less common, so less impact on local housing market and economy. My job means I have to live in tied accommodation, so I have a second home in a seaside town. It’s a small flat which had been on the market for 2 years before I bought it for less than £40k so I’m not depriving anyone local of a home.

No I don't. As long as they are used. But having multiple homes and only going for two weeks a year (to ski perhaps) and leaving it empty - seems like a waste of money when you could just rent a chalet for the time.

I’m not keen. Although the house-price-increases argument isn’t so very compelling to me given that many people can’t afford to buy in the city they grew up in!

We don’t have unlimited space. Everyone deserves a roof over their heads. Second homes (and enormous vanity-project builds) are just such a dreadful waste.

Many second home owners think they “help support local economy” but in reality bring huge amount of supplies with them. EG fill up car en route, groceries and household things brought in, etc. At best, they contribute to low-quality insecure seasonal jobs with non-family-friendly hours (because most visit only during school holiday season odd weekends). Tourism in general isn’t great for employment options, but most hotels/holiday lets vary rates to get better occupancy levels in off-season.

Many (not all!!) second home owners have staggering levels of NIMBY-ism. eg against affordable housing schemes, business that “lower the tone”. An expensive deli? Yes, great. A take-away? God no. Art gallery? That’s fine. A garage specialising in motorbikes? Definitely not. Regardless of the needs of permanent residents.

Symptomatic of our tragically consumerist world. “I want to live in a city AND rurally!”. But it’s very unlikely that anyone who does do contributes to either place (I don’t mean financially, I mean in terms of all the small things that make areas better to live in - kids sport clubs, old folks events, running village hall, etc.). I don’t know any second home owners who volunteer to take a turn helping out in any way whatsoever, and yet they’ll bang on about what a “great little community” there is.

And a side rant: Some second home appear to have run out of ideas as to what to spend their money on. In a world where people go without clean water, basic healthcare, etc. A lot of second home owners can afford it, depressingly often, by inheritance. I see inheritance as unearned, undeserved wealth gain by people who (generally) have already enjoyed all the benefits of having the good luck to grow up in a well-off household (decent schools, etc). It is wrong that people who are already advantaged inherit again through no skill, talent, of work of their own. But that’s not an argument against owning a second home so much as how our society (fails to) work.

It’s human nature to want to leave what you can to your relatives which is why most old people do it. They might just have a bean but they want family to have it. It’s not up to others to say they shouldn’t do this. They worked for their property in the first place. I have relatives who thought buying was madness when the council would give you a home. That was their choice and buying was other people’s choice. So be it.

And, in case you just thought that 60 years ago it was only the poor who got Council homes, think again. Many more middle managers and self employed people had them. It’s not the same now for obvious reasons.

If posters think more affordable homes should be built in conservation areas or the AONB, go ahead and campaign for them. Often it’s locals who don’t want their areas changed. No one has a right to stay where they grew up.

I agree from the deceased’s point of view you’d want your offspring to inherit.
But from a society-wide perspective it would be better if people spent it before they died... for the person who inherits (or rather, doesn’t!) it is unfair. Because there’s such a huge chasm between the highest-paid and lowest-paid in society I honestly don’t see how such wealth inequality should continue. BUT, that’s not really a “second home” discussion.

I have spent a lot too! Big deposits for DCs flats. I do see that wealth inequality is an issue if you haven’t got it but many of us are descended from people for whom private renting was the norm. People strived to get a home of their own. Not everyone was able to but many people didn’t agree with being beholden to the state. They didn’t want to rent privately. People now have big pension lump sums, the benefit of previous generations houses and striving themselves for the extras they want. Many of us didn’t have families with much but they did decide to buy a house. Others didn’t. Most people don’t want to lose what they and their families have worked for. If they wish to buy second homes so be it.

I think it’s also important to remember that some people left their local towns/villages to work their socks off and climb up the career ladder in places like London.
They had to leave their local towns/villages because the jobs are in London. London makes sure that investment stays in London and is not distributed around the country. The concentration of jobs in the SE doesn't do anybody any favours: the SE has jobs but not enough housing; the rest has housing but not enough jobs.

Property is also where a lot of people (richer than me) invest their money. Interest rates are so low that there is no point in keeping it in the bank.