Gentrification, good or bad?

[nick76]

5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

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!

I never thought I’d become the big bad wolf on this thread.  Given all the gentrification issues and the homelessness that has been added to the discussion, an individual owning a holiday home is one of smallest issues (if really an issue at all) I expected some to get so worked up on.

[Xela]

10 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Barry Island

Or Barry Osland if you are @Seat68

[nick76]

57 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.

What a silly idea!  Not only taxing the multiple properties for so many reasons but then do you think the government will invest that tax money back into that community directly? No chance.  Also you think it’s a moral obligation but many would disagree it’s a moral issue at all.

[chrisp65]

10 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

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!

 

I’d agree with it being the duty of the government… but the government is voted in by ‘us’. Unfortunately not that many of ‘us’ have a joined up sense of community ‘empathy’.

When a tory government gets voted in, it’s hardly going to have the welfare of the poor as a priority over multi property owning tory voters.

You can see that in the local politics where I am, the Government has announced that second homes can be subject to 300% rates charges in order to help provide more affordable homes. The conservatives have gone on record describing this as immoral. That’s the word they actually used, taxing people that were sucking up multiple houses when there are homeless people, they think that is immoral.

 

[KentVillan]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

I’d agree with it being the duty of the government… but the government is voted in by ‘us’. Unfortunately not that many of ‘us’ have a joined up sense of community ‘empathy’.

When a tory government gets voted in, it’s hardly going to have the welfare of the poor as a priority over multi property owning tory voters.

You can see that in the local politics where I am, the Government has announced that second homes can be subject to 300% rates charges in order to help provide more affordable homes. The conservatives have gone on record describing this as immoral. That’s the word they actually used, taxing people that were sucking up multiple houses when there are homeless people, they think that is immoral.

 

Yep I agree with all this. A second home is a luxury, and ramping up the taxes on them is a sensible way of allowing people to buy one while reinvesting that money where it's needed.

[chrisp65]

It keeps everyone happy, the wealthy can afford it, the less wealthy get compensated. It’s the very basis of ‘society’.

Now, whether you invest in society and community, or just decide to be out for yourself as an individual at the expense of others, I guess that depends on your morals.

[KentVillan]

Interesting video on what happened to New Orleans after Katrina

[nick76]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

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.

Most of the coastal areas I visit regularly is pretty much catering for tourism anyway, without tourism the communities are in trouble anyway with a lot of the locals needing to look out of that area for work otherwise.

It seems like having the cake and eating it with the current argument from some.  Wanting the tourism but wanting the tourists to bugger off once the money is made by the locals.  

Without the tourism the locals struggle anyway because the old local industries aren’t as strong as decades ago.  So without the tourism the house prices would be lower but far less employment or low wage employment because no tourism jobs so not enough money for locals to buy even for the lower house prices.  It’s one of the reasons so many coastal communities in the UK and also abroad destinations advertise/market so hard to tourists.  

The difference is now the tourists are falling in love with these places, want to go more often and financially it makes sense to invest in a second home.  So local people now want to tax hard earning people like me more tax over and above the taxes we pay above the average anyway.  I’m not part of the extremely rich society, I’m just a guy whose worked hard like most people that has to be around the city for work but likes the comfort of a coastal retreat 3 or 4 times a year (plus other family members using it) but to do that some want to tax me more or not allow me to have a second home but still want my cash through tourism.  So they want their cake and to eat it! Yet I’m the unreasonable one

 

 

Anyway I’m done for today on this thread.  Hopefully the Cornwall locals won’t lynch me when I’m down there in four weeks time for being the anti-Christ.

Edited March 19, 2022 by nick76

[villa4europe]

Without reading the thread has anyone mentioned the Eastern Berlin referendum from last year where the residents voted no on I think a €4bn development scheme 

Berlin makes for an interesting case study on it, developers are desperate for the city, the residents aren't desperate for them 

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Most of the coastal areas I visit regularly is pretty much catering for tourism anyway, without tourism the communities are in trouble anyway with a lot of the locals needing to look out of that area for work otherwise.

It seems like having the cake and eating it with the current argument from some.  Wanting the tourism but wanting the tourists to bugger off once the money is made by the locals.  

Without the tourism the locals struggle anyway because the old local industries aren’t as strong as decades ago. So without the tourism the house prices would be lower but far less employment or low wage employment because no tourism jobs so not enough money for locals to buy even for the lower house prices.  It’s one of the reasons so many coastal communities in the UK and also abroad destinations advertise/market so hard to tourists.  

The difference is now the tourists are falling in love with these places, want to go more often and financially it makes sense to invest in a second home.

Yes these places depend on tourism, but second home ownership doesn't make financial sense from a pure "holidaying" perspective. The house next door to me went for 220 grand a couple of years ago - 2 bed red brick Victorian Terrace, like you see everywhere. Probably worth more now, say 240 grand. How on earth will anyone spend 240 grand purely on accomodation holidaying in Coastal Lancashire, even in a lifetime? No chance. It makes sense as an asset, which can be sold for a profit later, and the mortage paid for from Airbnb income, maybe. But as a second home it doesn't, and didn't, which is why the owners now Airbnb it.

I know every case is different, but I think the notion that second home ownership isn't part of the problem is weak. And no, people generally don't want tourists to "bugger off" once they've made money, because the hotel workers, cafe workers, cleaners, cooks and all the others - they're unpaid when there's no tourists and therefore no work. The owners of hotels and shops might, I agree - or they seemed to in Newquay, but that's ironically the rich, with their own second homes in tenerife.

[sidcow]

I'm extremely lucky in that we bought our first home in 1997 right at the bottom of the cycle and the same with our second house (moving to it, not "a second" home) too. 

So we've just been extremely lucky and seen the value of our home pretty much rocket each time. 

A lot of people get really excited about this (especially Daily Mail readers) but for me it's really bittersweet.  I actually don't want it to be rocketing.  It doesn't really benefit me as I'm just living here, if ever I move I'll have to buy something else that's equally increased in value.  So it's all pretty meaningless but I'm really worried about if my kids will ever be able to afford to get on the ladder. 

The only glimmer of light is that the birth rate is currently falling and that fall is accelerating. 

The biggest population band, the baby boomers are now reaching advanced old age, the second biggest band (my age) children of baby booomers are the last population spike, all age groups below that is smaller. 

The UK birth rate in 2020 was 1.65 which is a hell of a long way down from the traditional 2.4 of my generation. 

Coupled with reduced immigration if the Tories get their way we should see population reductions in future. 

This will lessen the pressure on housing but bring additional pressures like elderly care and how to pay for it.  Japan has had large population reductions and already have issues with elderly care. 

Sorry, I've wandered a bit off topic but maybe in future more people will actually afford to buy their own homes regardless of gentrification, and holiday homes for the wealthy will not be an issue. 

[Seat68]

My second home has 4 wheels. Holidays in the UK are expensive so I have a motorhome. 

[nick76]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yes these places depend on tourism, but second home ownership doesn't make financial sense from a pure "holidaying" perspective. The house next door to me went for 220 grand a couple of years ago - 2 bed red brick Victorian Terrace, like you see everywhere. Probably worth more now, say 240 grand. How on earth will anyone spend 240 grand purely on accomodation holidaying in Coastal Lancashire, even in a lifetime? No chance.

But you’re not spending 240 grand on accommodation holidaying are you?  As you say, you buy the house and later can sell the house.  Your cost financially is the difference between the buy initially and sell later cost, less any taxes and other costs you incur from mortgage costs to utility costs.  That’s what you compare to your holiday rental costs which is likely to be many times/weeks in the year and maybe your family using it as well.  Then is that extra cost worth the non-financial benefits of being your own, available when you want, set up as you want, leave your belongings there and in a place you love.  It’s not 240 grand holidaying though is it!

[nick76]

25 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

My second home has 4 wheels. Holidays in the UK are expensive so I have a motorhome. 

Oh you’re in trouble now with that comment. I got into trouble earlier saying that.

[sidcow]

41 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

My second home has 4 wheels. Holidays in the UK are expensive so I have a motorhome. 

Speaking of which I can't believe how **** expensive motor homes are! 

[Seat68]

22 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Oh you’re in trouble now with that comment. I got into trouble earlier saying that.

Motorhome is a little different, if anything I am saying there isn't a need to buy a second home when there are quite a few alternative options available. A motorhome is one relatively cheap option. 

[Seat68]

8 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Speaking of which I can't believe how **** expensive motor homes are! 

The meth I cook up more than pays for it. 

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, nick76 said:

But you’re not spending 240 grand on accommodation holidaying are you?  As you say, you buy the house and later can sell the house.  Your cost financially is the difference between the buy initially and sell later cost, less any taxes and other costs you incur from mortgage costs to utility costs.  That’s what you compare to your holiday rental costs which is likely to be many times/weeks in the year and maybe your family using it as well.  Then is that extra cost worth the non-financial benefits of being your own, available when you want, set up as you want, leave your belongings there and in a place you love.  It’s not 240 grand holidaying though is it!

Exactly - that's my point (badly put, perhaps) - but the part where someone dobs 250 grand on a home in seaside town isn't really to simply take holidays there, it's to take advantage of an overall propety owning situation for profit as well as also having a summer bolt hole. It's not purely about holidaying. To pretend (for most) it is, is disingenuous. It makes financial sense for them, but for the people who live there it has the opposite effect - their costs go up and their labour is in lower demand than if someone lived there full time in that house.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

Most of the coastal areas I visit regularly is pretty much catering for tourism anyway, without tourism the communities are in trouble anyway with a lot of the locals needing to look out of that area for work otherwise.

It seems like having the cake and eating it with the current argument from some.  Wanting the tourism but wanting the tourists to bugger off once the money is made by the locals.  

Without the tourism the locals struggle anyway because the old local industries aren’t as strong as decades ago.  So without the tourism the house prices would be lower but far less employment or low wage employment because no tourism jobs so not enough money for locals to buy even for the lower house prices.  It’s one of the reasons so many coastal communities in the UK and also abroad destinations advertise/market so hard to tourists.  

The difference is now the tourists are falling in love with these places, want to go more often and financially it makes sense to invest in a second home.  So local people now want to tax hard earning people like me more tax over and above the taxes we pay above the average anyway.  I’m not part of the extremely rich society, I’m just a guy whose worked hard like most people that has to be around the city for work but likes the comfort of a coastal retreat 3 or 4 times a year (plus other family members using it) but to do that some want to tax me more or not allow me to have a second home but still want my cash through tourism.  So they want their cake and to eat it! Yet I’m the unreasonable one

 

Would you say there was more of a gap between the extremely wealthy with multi million pound properties, and yourself. Or, someone with two homes because they appreciate the comfort of a coastal retreat 3 or 4 times a year, and a family that can’t afford a place to live?

I fail to understand this cake and eat it argument? It’s a false argument you are setting up, nobody is saying not to be a tourist, they’re suggesting having multiple houses that then prices other people out of the market is bad, bad for people, bad for communities. This cake argument suggests you really can’t see the problem. So let’s try this, two people need to eat, there are two cakes, you have enough money to buy both cakes. So you do, and then you eat them both. 

[StefanAVFC]

Oof fun topic.

We are building a house, within our family over here we have 2 holiday homes that we built outselves on family owned land. Is building your own second home on your own land fitting into this controversy in the same way? Different country I guess.

We also plan to buy a flat purely to rent, at the going rate in town. Is this acceptable?