4 ms·

> Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up get

> Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year? Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? As residents, we're quite proud of our village and surrounding rural lot and deeply care about and appreciate what we have. Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year.

lmm 9y ago
> Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time. So better to give dozens of people a chance to see it once than have a few people see it over and over again. (Or if someone really does want to see it over and over again, they can pay what it costs). > Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year. Well if tourists are able to pay more for housing than permanent residents then they're probably also going to be spending more on meals out, more likely to want upgraded plumbing or electrics (or damage those in an unfamiliar house).... But assuming you're right, employment is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. If someone has their heart set on a career as a chef or shopkeeper or plumber or electrician or carpenter, good for them, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to do that job in a particularly picturesque place.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  >There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time. So better to give dozens of people a chance to see it once than have a few people see it over and over again. (Or if someone really does want to see it over and over again, they can pay what it costs). lol Who let in the robot?
- teh_klev 9y ago
  Sigh....I'm not even going to grace this comment with even a half thoughtful response.
andrewjl 9y ago
Assuming we're still talking about free markets, there are two solutions: 1) Build enough housing for everyone, tourists and locals alike. 2) Ban short-term rentals entirely. Option 1 might alter the surroundings or vibes, but option 2 will destroy the tourist-dependent component of the local economy, which for many places IS the economy.
srtjstjsj 9y ago
> s residents, we're quite proud of our village Obviously not, if all your neighbors are renting out their homes
- teh_klev 9y ago
  Not sure if being a wee bit obtuse or I failed at detecting a smidgen of humour there. Assuming you mean AirBNB lets, so of course not all my neighbours are renting out their homes as holiday lets. If not, then why wouldn't medium to long term tenants also appreciate their village and local surroundings.
- astura 9y ago
  It's entirely possible the units are being bought by absentee investors rather than residents.

lmm 9y ago

> Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time. So better to give dozens of people a chance to see it once than have a few people see it over and over again. (Or if someone really does want to see it over and over again, they can pay what it costs). > Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year. Well if tourists are able to pay more for housing than permanent residents then they're probably also going to be spending more on meals out, more likely to want upgraded plumbing or electrics (or damage those in an unfamiliar house).... But assuming you're right, employment is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. If someone has their heart set on a career as a chef or shopkeeper or plumber or electrician or carpenter, good for them, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to do that job in a particularly picturesque place.

JBlue42 9y ago
>There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time. So better to give dozens of people a chance to see it once than have a few people see it over and over again. (Or if someone really does want to see it over and over again, they can pay what it costs). lol Who let in the robot?
teh_klev 9y ago
Sigh....I'm not even going to grace this comment with even a half thoughtful response.

andrewjl 9y ago

Assuming we're still talking about free markets, there are two solutions: 1) Build enough housing for everyone, tourists and locals alike. 2) Ban short-term rentals entirely. Option 1 might alter the surroundings or vibes, but option 2 will destroy the tourist-dependent component of the local economy, which for many places IS the economy.

srtjstjsj 9y ago

> s residents, we're quite proud of our village Obviously not, if all your neighbors are renting out their homes

teh_klev 9y ago
Not sure if being a wee bit obtuse or I failed at detecting a smidgen of humour there. Assuming you mean AirBNB lets, so of course not all my neighbours are renting out their homes as holiday lets. If not, then why wouldn't medium to long term tenants also appreciate their village and local surroundings.
astura 9y ago
It's entirely possible the units are being bought by absentee investors rather than residents.