Gentrification, good or bad?

[Ingram85]

I think talking about ‘second’ homes is sick tbh. Think about that, being able to afford a second home. Mind boggling. When most people can’t even afford to get on the ladder at all. **** up country. 

[KentVillan]

19 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

I think talking about ‘second’ homes is sick tbh. Think about that, being able to afford a second home. Mind boggling. When most people can’t even afford to get on the ladder at all. **** up country. 

I don’t own any property, but if I had a few hundred grand I’d happily buy a city flat and a little cottage by the coast, and wouldn’t necessarily be more expensive than buying one massive house… would you feel guilty about that?

The issue is there isn’t enough housing being built and you have massive property empires and property being left parked and unoccupied by wealthy elites IMO. The desire among reasonably well off middle class to have a little holiday home isn’t the problem - although I understand why it bothers people in certain parts of the country, where too many properties are like this.

We need a system of local taxes and incentives that helps to prevent this sucking the life out of a community. If holiday home owners had to pay an additional community tax, that could be invested in that area and help to mitigate the effects.

[Ingram85]

16 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I don’t own any property, but if I had a few hundred grand I’d happily buy a city flat and a little cottage by the coast, and wouldn’t necessarily be more expensive than buying one massive house… would you feel guilty about that?

The issue is there isn’t enough housing being built and you have massive property empires and property being left parked and unoccupied by wealthy elites IMO. The desire among reasonably well off middle class to have a little holiday home isn’t the problem - although I understand why it bothers people in certain parts of the country, where too many properties are like this.

We need a system of local taxes and incentives that helps to prevent this sucking the life out of a community. If holiday home owners had to pay an additional community tax, that could be invested in that area and help to mitigate the effects.

Why? Just get a place somewhere you want to live and leave the other property for someone else who might NEED it. You want to live by the coast then buy by the coast. If you live in a town/city in land and want to go to the coast, go on a holiday. If you can afford to buy a second property by the coast you can afford a holiday by the coast. Put something into the local economy by going on holiday. Don’t destroy the local coastal towns by turning up once or twice a year. If everyone had the same idea to buy a second holiday home by the sea then the towns would be nothing more than empty film sets for 90% of the year (more than they are now) then the lucky few come along for their week in the sun and find there’s no shops or entertainment open because no is there anymore except those like them. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Ingram85

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

https://www.housebyurbansplash.co.uk/locations/port-loop

I used to know Jonathon reasonably well and was on nodding terms with Tom. Early on they did some really good developments and later some utter shite if I'm honest but a lot of the stuff they've done where they've essentially built something where previously there's been utter dereliction has been great. That's the kind of gentrification that's needed

They started the Baa Bar chain of pubs because they wanted a decent bar in their first development, which also housed their offices. Not only did the Baa Bar go on to become a reasonably succesful chain which they sold on but a whole entertainment district in Liverpool grew around that regeneration. The Concert Square area of Liverpool was started by their regeneration and from that Liverpool grew as a weekend tourist destination. As much as people will tell you that the football did that, they'd be talking bollocks. Creating that city centre entertainments district allowed the football tourism to take off.

Liverpool really does owe Jon and Tom a huge debt of gratitude

I've not kept that much of an eye on them since they moved to Manchester and beyond but they were at the forefront of Liverpool's regeneration

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

I think some of the responses to Nick are a bit harsh and unnecessary to be honest. You might not agree with him, but he's here sharing his opinion (and more importantly, reading and replying to contrary opinions) and, as far as I can tell, discussing in good faith, yet he gets insults and swearing in response.

It's no wonder most of us seem to live in political echo-chambers when that's the kind of response someone gets for engaging in a discussion.

 

I hereby promise to give the views of people that value their holiday over homelessness the absolute respect and credit they deserve.

[KentVillan]

35 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

I hereby promise to give the views of people that value their holiday over homelessness the absolute respect and credit they deserve.

Homelessness isn’t caused by people buying holiday homes instead of renting them, surely?

Isn’t the major cause of homelessness the prolonged lack of govt investment in mental health and addiction support services, and cuts to benefits that help people get by when they are sick or out of work?

There are plenty of countries that have managed to keep homelessness down while still allowing people to have holiday homes.

 

[nick76]

3 hours ago, Ingram85 said:

I think talking about ‘second’ homes is sick tbh. Think about that, being able to afford a second home. Mind boggling. When most people can’t even afford to get on the ladder at all. **** up country. 

One of the most bizarre comments ever.

Somebody having a second home is ‘sick’.  I’ve heard some things in my time but this is up there.

[nick76]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

Homelessness isn’t caused by people buying holiday homes instead of renting them, surely?

Isn’t the major cause of homelessness the prolonged lack of govt investment in mental health and addiction support services, and cuts to benefits that help people get by when they are sick or out of work?

There are plenty of countries that have managed to keep homelessness down while still allowing people to have holiday homes.

 

Between the massive amount of income tax I’ve paid over the years which I’m more than happy to do and the amount of money I spend when I’m in these communities I can sleep in my bed well at night.  The government has bigger contribution from tax than the average persons money to spend from me to wisely on spend homelessness if they choose to and secondly that the money I spend in these communities helps continue the livelihood of the local shops and businesses.  I’m not the cause of homelessness.

[nick76]

4 hours ago, Ingram85 said:

Yes fair enough that he’s sharing but we are on a forum, you share an opinion then you get responses. He is talking about a very contentious issue, he essentially agrees with turning seaside towns into empty “Airbnb” ghost towns outside of a few weeks in august. Preserves for the rich. It’s utter bollocks and the more people like him get it into their heads that this isn’t acceptable the better. Sorry not sorry. 

You’re wording is a little wrong but I get your point.  If I have a second home down the coast it is acceptable.  Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make your view correct. You feel this is a contentious issue, I don’t think it’s an issue at all and will most likely be ignored in the world we live in.

I find it bizarre your argument to be honest.  I work hard, pay taxes and I’m a good guy.  I live in the city because that is where my type of work resides and not by the coast.  Many times a year (and not just August) I enjoy the South Coast.  My very right is to be able to have a second home if I wish and can afford it.

Why should I care if local joe’s son can’t afford a house right next to his dad when he’s 18 or 25…I couldn’t afford a house then I didn’t whinge about it.  Why should a local get special treatment over me? I’m doing nothing wrong and I’m using the open market.  

It just feels the argument is two fold 1) we want to keep areas for locals only.  A pretty bizarre request for many reasons. 2) house prices are too expensive for youngsters to get on the ladder, which I agree with.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

Homelessness isn’t caused by people buying holiday homes instead of renting them, surely?

Isn’t the major cause of homelessness the prolonged lack of govt investment in mental health and addiction support services, and cuts to benefits that help people get by when they are sick or out of work?

There are plenty of countries that have managed to keep homelessness down while still allowing people to have holiday homes.

 

 

Homelessness has as many causes as there are people that are homeless. It’s not all ex military and people with mental health issues, homelessness is more than those visibly rough sleeping.

The government statistics for England are that there are 68,000 families or households listed as homeless in England in September 2021.

Crisis helpfully lists what it describes as the hidden homeless, the people holed up in temporary accommodation, hostels, B&B’s, at friends houses and sofa surfing. This figure, Crisis puts at 227,000. This figure still doesn’t include ‘kids’ that are stuck at home with parents rather than building a life.

Many of these people are homeless because of house prices. They have jobs, they have a steady lifestyle. But they are made homeless by the people with enough finance push up demand and make the house prices in an area run out of kilter with wages in an area. Economic domination by the people with access to more credit.

In many towns, even if a couple of youngsters both with jobs have managed to get accommodation, they still have the problem of local services being stripped out because there isn’t a stable year round community. Yes, the garage selling booze and barbecues will be fine. But the school will close.

We need to tax people with multiple properties to make sure the homes are replaced in the community. A direct tax against those doing the damage. It’s basic good economics and a moral obligation to make sure people with credit don’t destroy communities they use at Easter and August.

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, nick76 said:

It just feels the argument is two fold 1) we want to keep areas for locals only.  A pretty bizarre request for many reasons. 2) house prices are too expensive for youngsters to get on the ladder, which I agree with.

I don't think your assessment of the first argument is right, at all. I percieve the argument to be that in many places, at the moment, these areas are for "outsiders to buy second homes" only. And that people are talking about how to remedy that situation. If a community of people can't sustain itself, that's a detrimental thing for the area - the pubs, shops and cafes etc. have little custom for much of the year to sustain them, they close, the area loses the amentities and facilites it needs to thrive and be a good place to live - it doesn't even help the second home owners when they are there - they can no longer get a pint or fish and chips (and gravy) or a pizza or whatever.

When I lived in Newquay, half the town shut for the winter months and it was a very different place to live, than in the summer. Half the year, overrun and very vibrant, half the year very quiet. It didn't help that a lot of the shop and other business owners closed down and buggered off to Tenerife for the winter months, having made a fortune over the summer, but that's another story.

The second problem you mention, is exacerbated in coastal places, which tend to have low wage, tourist based economies, but house prices are sky high because of the demand for second homes. It's a legitimate desire to want to have a pad by the sea, but it's part of the problem for the people who live there and work in the cafes and bars and shops and so on. The same is true of the lake district and other areas of beauty.

[Ingram85]

33 minutes ago, nick76 said:

You’re wording is a little wrong but I get your point.  If I have a second home down the coast it is acceptable.  Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make your view correct. You feel this is a contentious issue, I don’t think it’s an issue at all and will most likely be ignored in the world we live in.

I find it bizarre your argument to be honest.  I work hard, pay taxes and I’m a good guy.  I live in the city because that is where my type of work resides and not by the coast.  Many times a year (and not just August) I enjoy the South Coast.  My very right is to be able to have a second home if I wish and can afford it.

Why should I care if local joe’s son can’t afford a house right next to his dad when he’s 18 or 25…I couldn’t afford a house then I didn’t whinge about it.  Why should a local get special treatment over me? I’m doing nothing wrong and I’m using the open market.  

It just feels the argument is two fold 1) we want to keep areas for locals only.  A pretty bizarre request for many reasons. 2) house prices are too expensive for youngsters to get on the ladder, which I agree with.

You’ve missed the point. The ‘haves’ rarely see the world through the ‘have nots’ eyes and view their selfishness as ‘real world’ opinion as it stops any reflection on what they are doing. Not a surprise whatsoever so crack on mate.

Your opinion is why coastal towns are going to be ghost towns in the future only inhabited by the im alright jacks for a few weeks of the year and they’ll have nothing to do because the lower wage plebs aren’t around to provide them with services anymore.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Ingram85

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

You’ve missed the point. The ‘haves’ rarely see the world through the ‘have nots’ eyes. Not a surprise whatsoever so crack on mate. Your opinion os why coastal towns are going to be ghost towns in the future only inhabited by the im alright jacks for a few weeks of the year and they’ll have nothing to do because the lower wage plebs aren’t around to provide them with services. 

Not to mention burglary central

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

The ‘haves’ rarely see the world through the ‘have nots’ eyes and view their selfishness as ‘real world’ opinion as it stops any reflection on what they are doing

I dunno if that's too much of a generalisation. It's certainly true for some, but I'm not sure it's true for even most "haves". Obviously their experience of life is very different in many ways, but there are a lot of kind and generous good people with money, in my experience. Also some right bell ends, true.

[nick76]

3 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

You’ve missed the point. The ‘haves’ rarely see the world through the ‘have nots’ eyes and view their selfishness as ‘real world’ opinion as it stops any reflection on what they are doing. Not a surprise whatsoever so crack on mate.

Your opinion is why coastal towns are going to be ghost towns in the future only inhabited by the im alright jacks for a few weeks of the year and they’ll have nothing to do because the lower wage plebs aren’t around to provide them with services. 

Wherever the ‘haves’ are spending money, the ‘have nots’ will be around so your last line won’t happen.

[Xela]

Can anyone recommend a nice coastal town to buy a holiday home?

[Ingram85]

5 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Wherever the ‘haves’ are spending money, the ‘have nots’ will be around so your last line won’t happen.

And with that type of post I know exactly where you truly stand anyway so yeah, I’ll leave it there and leave you to post whatever you want now, as I don’t want to waste my time with you anymore. The floor is yours. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Ingram85

[KentVillan]

34 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

We need to tax people with multiple properties to make sure the homes are replaced in the community. A direct tax against those doing the damage. It’s basic good economics and a moral obligation to make sure people with credit don’t destroy communities they use at Easter and August.

I agree 100% with this bit, but the argument was about whether it was reasonable to want to own a holiday home in a country where many people are homeless - I think it is a reasonable ambition, but it’s on the govt to fix the incentives and tax/spend so that it doesn’t ruin communities.

Also in many of these coastal towns, there is very little economic activity besides tourism. It’s easy to blame that on wealthy Londoners leaving properties empty, but it’s surely much more complicated than that - the sectors that sustained these places (agriculture, fishing, traditional industries, etc) have declined *everywhere*.

Plus with the WFH economy, it’s now much more feasible for the office worker from the big city to spend much more time in a rural cottage. That might actually inject more money in - although then we get back to our debate about gentrification and the character of a community.

I completely get why people get angry about all of this, but pinning the blame on the individual property buyer seems a bit unfair to me - or certainly it it’s @nick76saying he wouldn’t mind owning a holiday home!

[KentVillan]

14 minutes ago, Xela said:

Can anyone recommend a nice coastal town to buy a holiday home?

Barry Island

[nick76]

12 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

And with that type of post I know exactly where you truly stand anyway so yeah, I’ll leave it there and leave you to post whatever you want now, as I don’t want to waste my time with you anymore. The floor is yours. 

Haha gold! It’s hard when facts of reality kill your argument.