Gordon Brown To Curb Second Home Ownership

[Cogs]

Double post. Sorry.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Cogs

[King Stromba]

I used to live in Norfolk, and it always amazed me the amount of city knobs who lived in the little villages around Norwich that would commute to London every day. You could see the XK8s and X5's heading down the A1 at 5.30 - 6 am in the morning, and the same cars returning at 7 - 8 pm.

Hey if people want to live like that then fair play. Heart attack at 50 it is then.

Norfolk is full of second home owners. The locals know exactly who they are and where they live. Go to any pub and chat to farmers and they will tell you how all the houses are being pushed up in price by city types.

I dont agree with taxing them or them having to pay a penatly of any kind, its a free country you should be able to buy where you like. But if the locals burn your car and house down, then caveat emptor as far as i am concerned. I doubt the 'local' police would care much, as they have the same propblem as all the other locals.

Edited March 2, 2008 by King Stromba

[Guest AuntJess]

Query: I'm a big city child so I don't really know about village attitudes. To what extent do young locals really WANT the sort of houses that second-homers buy - twee, old, inconvenient, high-maintenance, badly insulated etc? I may be wrong, but I doubt many incomers are falling over themselves to buy modern semis or terraces. If every village was required / enabled to build 10% extra homes ( i.e. stop the Nimbys knobbling the planners) it would either solve the problem, or lay bare a more fundamental problem: that there are no jobs in the area anyway, so the choice may be between deserted villages (think some areas of France) or retirement villages.

As someone who was born in a village, moved to the Metroplis and then back to the rural scene, let me explain. Judging from the young-ish ( in their 30's) singles I have met here in the countryside, they would jump at ANYthing that meant a roof over their heads. I know of those who are living in caravans - old ones... not the swep'-up versions - and who are driving old bangers. One lass I know whose 'banger' gave up the ghost, now has to walk to work, as the buses don't run frequently enough in 'rural-ania' to be of any use.

I guess it all comes down to one of two things...or in MY case both. You either have lived a bit and seen most - if not all - of it:

You have insight/empathy into the plight of other people whose problems are different to yours.

You talk as though you earn a good salary and have the choice of domiciles to live in. Out in the sticks, they will take anything on offer...they usually have to.

Edited March 2, 2008 by AuntJess

[MarkG]

The problem seems to be infrastructure (maintained regardless of your presence or absence up to a level suitable for the high-season population) and also the provision of services to quite an elderly full-time population (its unlivable for younger people, no jobs out of season).

And, don't forget, the more house prices rise in those areas, the higher wages have to go for the workers providing these 'services' if they're going to live there. It's one thing to earn 10,000 a year working for the council if you can buy a small terraced house in a village for 30-40,000... and quite another if boomer 'second home' scum have pushed prices up to 200,000+.

[TalkingSense]

Also posted on the newsblog <a href="http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/newsblog/2008/03/blog-wrong-end-of-the-stick-again-gordy-10875.php"> here </a>.

Gist is that Gordy should be addressing the massive inequality between earning power geographically and generally rather than addressing the symptoms.

Also that this type of legislation is impossible to create and police in practice.

And the net effect could be that it makes such an economic incentive that the beauty spots themselves become a South East offshoot and get spoiled forever just like areas these second home buyers are escaping from. e.g Torquay...

[beans on toast]

So many people who post on here seem to be filled with jealousy and hatred and outright resentment.

Other people have done well, so they hate them for it. And gloat and gloat with *****-fantasies about how these people "will get their come-uppance".

Why?

Are they the same mentality that see someone's Rolls and want to key it.

Small minds, low ambition, find it easier to blame others for their own lack of success, and hate, hate, hate.

Such a negative emotion.

If people applied themselves to making their pie bigger, instead of whinging about how others got a bigger slice of the pie than they did, they would be happier.......

Its got nothing to do with hate - its about striking a balance. A lot of people who are coming to the party now are finding its impossible to own a house.

So what you're saying is, its ok for people who bought houses 10 or 15 years ago( almost all of em probably couldn't afford the current price if they had to buy now) to enjoy their prosperity. But the people who are trying to buy now should try and make their pie bigger!!! Nonsense.

[kingsgate]

Because some of them were still at school you .... ..... ..... .... . by the time they get out it will be too late...

It's that generation that is the generation left behind.

BTL isn't improving the economy, it's just repackaging the same old houses for ever more money, bought with the labour of future generations.

Nice eh? And not only that, but to constantly crow on about it, saying how wonderful it is, and how rubbish the lost generation is for not "getting on with it".

C*ck off

Left behind how? Because they haven't taken on a big mortgage? From the general tone of this web site, I would have thought that this would make them happy!

Look, there were rented houses for hundreds of years before the term "BTL" came into use in the mid-1990s.

Owner-occupation rates used to be much lower: more people used to rent than do now. People on here make it sound like BTL buyers have been buying most of the houses sold. They have never accounted for more than 10% of all houses sales.

[Benedict]

If people applied themselves to making their pie bigger, instead of whinging about how others got a bigger slice of the pie than they did, they would be happier.......

While I'd often agree with you, surely the point in this instance is that the proliferation of second home ownership in many rural communities is actually making the pie smaller for everyone. Rather than a home that's lived in and appreciated all year round there's a home that's empty most of the year. Rather than a sustainable and functioning community there's a community where schools close, public services cease out of season, local shops and restaurants close because there's not enough actual residents, all the people working in the schools or public services or local shops or restaurants lose their livelihood etc.

[redgenieuk]

Just making them pay full council tax would be a start.

Exactly. That should be the first thing.

[kingsgate]

While I'd often agree with you, surely the point in this instance is that the proliferation of second home ownership in many rural communities is actually making the pie smaller for everyone. Rather than a home that's lived in and appreciated all year round there's a home that's empty most of the year. Rather than a sustainable and functioning community there's a community where schools close, public services cease out of season, local shops and restaurants close because there's not enough actual residents, all the people working in the schools or public services or local shops or restaurants lose their livelihood etc.

Futile attempts to prevent people from buying holiday homes will not make small villages full of old people into thriving communities again. Nothing will. Sorry, but that's the way it is. It is a question of jobs, mainly.

Attempts to create what would effectively be regional housing markets, where you can only buy and sell in your own area, are doomed to failure and would probably contravene the Human Rights legislation.

Say I own a house in a nice village in Devon: I want to sell it because I want to move to a different area for work. If the government tell me that I must sell my house only to "a local" then I am trapped in a bizarre local-price market, which would limit my ability to buy in any area not subject to restriction. How is this right, or fair? Its my house, surely I should have the right to sell it to whoever I want?

The solution is to allow many more places to be built where people want to live, not to try to impose arbitrary rules on who may buy where.