Second Home Ownership

This mainly about the UK, I have no idea if it happens in other countries.

Basically, people who can afford it buy a holiday home/secondary residence that they do not use all year round.

The second homes tend to bought in nice countryside villages, however this can/has done/will negatively affect the villages.

It destroys the community as the house isn't going to be in use all year and so local shops and services get less use and close. It makes it so locals getting onto home owning ladder are at a disadvantage due to the rise in house prices from the second house demands, and may have to look elsewhere.

I don't like this, but I have no idea how to counteract it or anything.

What do you tropers should be done about it? If at all, if not why?

edited 16th Apr '11 3:48:40 PM by IanExMachina

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

In the US, it seems to have the opposite effect. People over here tend to buy vacation homes in tourist-y areas (near lakes, forests, beaches, etc), which helps bolster the local economy. There's a lot of cities over here that are seriously trying to attract tourists and encourage vacation home buying.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

I thought you're supposed to rent them out.

Although I suppose if you're using them as an annual vacation house, that'd only work in places with a high seasonal turnover.

The difference might be in size, you mentioned cities.

As I'm on about villages that don't need/want tourism, but as soon as there is less trade due to the empty houses the services and shops wither away, and then locals can't buy in the area etc and it spirals.

It's almost the opposite of before the industrial revolution, the poor would live in the country the rich in the city, and when factories and cities needed workers the poor moved to the city, whereas the preference for those well off is "to escape it all" and get a country place for that idea.

Edit: For those that do get rented out, the local services tend to be neglected as due to the annual holiday part of the house contract it's usually rented to others wanting to get away for a bit. So there is still less need for schools, post office etc etc and so they close down and the rest of the natives will have to look else where etc.

edited 16th Apr '11 4:01:05 PM by IanExMachina

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

Well, over here we don't differentiate between cities, villages, townships, etc. There's just "city" and "rural". Most of the areas that people buy vacation homes in tend to be pretty small, and it's usually the smaller cities that more heavily promote tourism.

For example, the city of Forks in WA viewed Twilight as a godsend, and it only has a few thousand people living there, and it's not very developed.

There's entire other cities in the US whose economies are predominately run by the tourism trade.

edited 16th Apr '11 4:02:56 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Ah ok.

Well when I say villages think picturesque little english village with cornershop and pub and stone walls and an actual duck pond etc. That kinda place .

Also perhaps the places here don't need 'development' they are usually fine.
It also might be due to in my other post "get away from it" all mentality that is quite common over here, in cities at least.

edited 16th Apr '11 4:08:01 PM by IanExMachina

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

Tourism is one thing, if it's in sufficient volume to sustain a market, but if it's not enough, because potential places for tourist to stay are shuttered, then it's a problem.

Sorry could you clarify what you mean please?

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

I'm not sure what you don't understand, but on the business side of things, you need a certain minimum volume to stay in operation. If you don't have enough customers, you can't keep the lights on. Now many businesses do shut down for a season, but that's not workable for everybody.

My request about clarification was about your point of lacking places for tourists to stay, which I'm not sure really relates, as there is no drive for the tourism in some parts.

I get the business part, as it's part of my argument why SHO is not great due to it in part, directly and indirectly leading to the closure of local shops/pubs/post offices etc.

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

Just pointing out that some vacation homes are not up for rent or other occupation as the owner doesn't want to do so, so they're shuttered when people might want to stay in them and be contributing to the tourist economy.

It doesn't help when these villages aren't geared for a tourist economy, they're geared towards being a village where people live?

There are some that have regeared towards tourism, but that doesn't change the fact the village is ruined for locals.

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

My family owns a house by the beach. The town is a little one that's not really geared towards tourism, though, and in my opinion the opening of commercial holiday hotels and the like is spoiling it.

Be not afraid...

Umm... wow, I never really thought of this that deeply.

Uh... swear never to buy a second home where the economy isn't geared towards that kind of thing?

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that sometimes switching to tourism isn't a viable option.

edited 16th Apr '11 5:03:02 PM by blueharp

@ Loni Jay
Say goodbye to your local economy?

@Game Chainsaw
Human Geography was the best part of my geography education, and there were whole modules relating to how SHO affects villages. Also good!

@blueharp
Indeed!

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

People with money will use that money how they will.

That's all.

Well, obviously.

But do you have an opinion on it?

edited 16th Apr '11 5:30:23 PM by IanExMachina

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

There is probably better things to spend your money on, but people are self-centered. Certainly, it's not a good thing for the local economy. But if people thought out all of their actions before they did them... the world would be a more intelligent place.

I don't really have an opinion. They will do as they will; I would personally discourage them from doing it, but I doubt they would particularly care for my opinion and allow me to influence them.

edited 16th Apr '11 5:36:48 PM by AllanAssiduity

^^^I don't buy that line of thinking. Just because you have power, in this case, financial power, you have the responisibility to use it in such a way that does not actively harm other people. That goes right down to the bar of fairtrade chocolate you buy in the shops rather than buying Nestle.

edited 16th Apr '11 5:35:26 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

^ Having financial wealth is in no way connected to having wisdom. Having power does not have an inherit connection to using that power responsibly. Why would you think this is the case?

Admittedly I'm seeing the world as it should be, rather than how it is. Once again proving that speaking idealistically is never much bloody good.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Thread Hop, only read the first thingy. Something similar is done in the US, however Time Shares are much more popular, since you've effectively got a dozen or so people renting a single house, in theory significantly increasing the number of people that stay there. I, personally, would never do it as I don't like traveling. I suppose if I had a job, I'd consider it, but I seriously doubt it as I think prison cells are appropriately furnished with the level of comforts I need. Well, except for a place to use my laptop.

Fight smart, not fair.

^^ Nothing wrong with speaking idealistically. However, taking it as what people actually do...

No one really regards second homes as a big deal around here. My parents want to build a "cabin" (really a house that lacks features most people in this area regard as a necessity for a first home - like a garage) on some land they own in the mountains. A large portion of the population there is seasonal as there is too much snow for commuting. It's just that right now, very few people here that don't already have one can afford it.

It sounds like what is happening in your area is people are paying to displace permanent residents. As a result, it transforms a prosperous but fiscally struggling village into a community - less collection of vacation homes. I'm not sure there's much that can be done about it. Even though it's a disaster for the shopping districts, it probably can be a very good thing for the people in the area that want to move.

I have met several self - made millionaires and a few non self - made ones. In general I find that most "mildly rich" people (for example, someone who owns a small car dealership and a 5000 - square foot (500 m2) home, but not much else) are surprisingly down - to - earth and most are wiser - and far braver - than I am when it comes to things related to money. However, they are often less wise about things that have little to do with money, I suspect because they don't spend as much time thinking about them.

edited 17th Apr '11 6:59:57 AM by FrodoGoofballCoTV