Tourism

[Dave2002]

This article - though perhaps over long - raises and discusses some interesting aspects about tourism - https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2...ravel-industry

[MrGongGong]

Just having a read
The end of cruise ships would be a great thing IMV

[teamsaint]

Just having a read
The end of cruise ships would be a great thing IMV

And would screw our local economy, and lose jobs for some musicians etc etc.

[Dave2002]

And would screw our local economy, and lose jobs for some musicians etc etc.

As with many aspects of life is it possible to get any sort of balance? It wouldn't bother me if a lot of cruise ships were taken out of service, but should tourism generally be shut down, or a least moderated?

I have enjoyed some trips abroad, but I have also experienced the noise of far too many planes flying late at night presumably taking people of on their "well earned and deserved" holidays. I wonder also if for younger people in the UK who can't actually afford to buy a house, or have decent accommodation, that they think "if we can't have a decent house, we might as well take a few weeks off somewhere in the sun" each year.

Also some older people, who take up travel voraciously, might think "we're not going to be here in a few years time, so s*d the planet - it's not our problem".

[Ein Heldenleben]

It's an excellent article . I long stopped driving into Cornwall during the summer holidays becuase of the tourist traffic. Last year I'm told it was pretty hard to walk down the street in places like St Ives, Fowey and Padstow. There's also a huge amount of water traffic like ribs over-powered for the the rivers they are used on. I suspect this year will be even worse or
better depending on your point of view . Yes a lot of locals make a living out of it- often a very good living - but a surprising amount of money goes out of Cornwall - to South East based second home owners, national hotel chains , supermarket chains. To add to that £1000 plus water bills are not uncommon (mine is £1250 per year ) - it means the bathing waters are cleaner but the benefit is felt by wealthy tourists not the often elderly residents - unless they are still swimming. The irony is if you go to places like South East Cornwall or inland there's no one but locals. As an economist once said to me all the pretty coves and harbours are owned by rich Londoners and the Cornish live in the "Indian reservations" of Camborne and Redruth. The solution is not to ban tourism but to spread it more around the county and across the year , and have a tourist tax to invest in things like loos and local bus routes. There should be no council tax reductions for second homes even if they are run as a business.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

... but a surprising amount of money goes out of Cornwall - to South East based second home owners, national hotel chains , supermarket chains. To add to that £1000 plus water bills are not uncommon (mine is £1250 per year ) - it means the bathing waters are cleaner but the benefit is felt by wealthy tourists not the often elderly residents - unless they are still swimming. The irony is if you go to places like South East Cornwall or inland there's no one but locals. As an economist once said to me all the pretty coves and harbours are owned by rich Londoners and the Cornish live in the "Indian reservations" of Camborne and Redruth. The solution is not to ban tourism but to spread it more around the county and across the year , and have a tourist tax to invest in things like loos and local bus routes. There should be no council tax reductions for second homes even if they are run as a business.

This highlights the iniquitous issue of second homes. Nationwide, tourist destinations are plagued with this virus. Not only does it push up price houses massively - it also turns many small settlements into ghost villages outside the tourist season. The result is both spooky and ugly, as well as being a reminder of human greed. So many people struggle to keep a roof above their heads, while these potentially permanent homes are boarded up. It may be difficult to ban second homes, but they could be taxed out of existence when not being occupied.

[eighthobstruction]

Just having a read
The end of cruise ships would be a great thing IMV

....after certain people have boarded , embarked, been entertained by boomer favourites, visited Machu Picchu, the Great Barrier Reef, Great Wall of China, Ayers Rock, Tahiti, Venice....And swim and sink in oceans turned to acid....

....Happy days....

[Dave2002]

So many people struggle to keep a roof above their heads, while these potentially permanent homes are boarded up. It may be difficult to ban second homes, but they could be taxed out of existence when not being occupied.

There is an additional tax burden for those buying second homes. In both England and Scotland there is additional "stamp duty" payable on completion (settlement). This is refunded if the original primary residence is sold within 3 years (England) or 18 months (Scotland). However, this change in tax rules which dates back to George Osborne's time, probably hasn't affected too many second home owners, and many would have had their extra homes for quite a long while.

I'm not so sure about the council tax issue though. If a dwelling is not occupied, there shouldn't be any people who require services, such as water, refuse collection etc. The suggestion that owners should pay more for services which they are not getting is arguably unreasonable.

[Dave2002]

.... but just closing down things we happen not to approve of doesn’t seem like an answer to me .

I'm not sure about "approval". It seems to me that if we wanted an even stronger economy the UK could set itself up as the gambling and sex den of the world - those areas seem to be the most "popular" and lucrative. Probably wouldn't catch on - though the UK might go very close while pretending it doesn't approve. Remember ethical trade deals?

Let's leave "approval" out of this for the minute, and then I'll ask - "but what would you do?" when faced with the sort of rampant consumerism we have in the UK and some other countries.

[eighthobstruction]

Let's leave "approval" out of this for the minute, and then I'll ask - "but what would you do?" when faced with the sort of rampant consumerism we have in the UK and some other countries.

....I'd say a great 'opportunity' to change the 3 Lions into a new logo/emblem....Consumerism Rampant....(or Credit Score Rampant)

....folk continually going on about' OPPORTUNITY.......at mo'....(ere, shut up....I like me armchair me)....

[oddoneout]

I'm not sure about "approval". It seems to me that if we wanted an even stronger economy the UK could set itself up as the gambling and sex den of the world - those areas seem to be the most "popular" and lucrative. Probably wouldn't catch on - though the UK might go very close while pretending it doesn't approve. Remember ethical trade deals?

Let's leave "approval" out of this for the minute, and then I'll ask - "but what would you do?" when faced with the sort of rampant consumerism we have in the UK and some other countries.

Didn't someone already flirt with that idea - super-casinos? There was going to be one on the coast in these parts but it has quietly died the death.
The tourism issue boils down to a combination of too much of a good thing and killing the goose that lays the golden egg in many cases. Trying to strike a balance between enough visitors to provide adequate income for an area, and few enough to avoid overloading the infrastructure and enable those who do visit to have a worthwhile experience is very hard, not least because the vested interests will have different perceptions of suitable limits. It is possibly most difficult where there is a limited season from which to derive enough income to get through the rest of the year; the options for such places to build alternative out of season offerings may well be non-existent, especially where the weather is against such enterprise as well, and any limits during the season compromise overall survival.

[oddoneout]

There is an additional tax burden for those buying second homes. In both England and Scotland there is additional "stamp duty" payable on completion (settlement). This is refunded if the original primary residence is sold within 3 years (England) or 18 months (Scotland). However, this change in tax rules which dates back to George Osborne's time, probably hasn't affected too many second home owners, and many would have had their extra homes for quite a long while.

I'm not so sure about the council tax issue though. If a dwelling is not occupied, there shouldn't be any people who require services, such as water, refuse collection etc. The suggestion that owners should pay more for services which they are not getting is arguably unreasonable.

There is always an element of paying for things one does not directly use, but services such as policing, streetlighting, public health, provision and maintenance of public spaces, need to carry on for the good of the community as a whole, and lack of them won't be of benefit to second home owners anymore than genuine residents, although the effects of such lack are temporary in the case of the former. I don't have any school age children, but my council tax helps to fund such provision.
If those who have 'ordinary' homes, ie regular housing stock, instead had property on designated holiday sites, the fees on those sites would probably be comparable to the second home council tax levels, or higher. Fees on coastal sites in this area are £3500 plus and like a residential property there will be utility bills on top. They are payable to provide the amenities regardless of how much use, if any , the owners make of them, same as council tax.
The irony in many cases is that because the types of houses that become second homes in desirable spots are often originally modest dwellings, the council tax will be in the lower bands so even at double rates the cost is hardly likely to be a deterrent.

[Dave2002]

There is always an element of paying for things one does not directly use, but services such as policing, streetlighting, public health, provision and maintenance of public spaces, need to carry on for the good of the community as a whole, and lack of them won't be of benefit to second home owners anymore than genuine residents, although the effects of such lack are temporary in the case of the former. I don't have any school age children, but my council tax helps to fund such provision.

I'm not against the better off paying more for the benefit of others, but some of the taxation rules don't seem to me to make sense. Local authorities are now, in many cases, completely strapped for cash, so you are right to point out that aspect of the services.

What is a "sad" observation from the tourism article is that often the "vested" interests have nothing to do with the community, nor those who visit the tourist spots. Presumably that applies even for tourism within the UK - whatever serious money is made either goes to London centric people, or even more faceless investors, rather than to help the local communities.

[gradus]

Cruises, as has been pointed out, give employment directly and indirectly to hundreds of thousands and a great deal of pleasure to the people who use them. Venice could have been spared great ships some time ago if the Italian government cared enough but simply keeping them away is unlikely to delay by much the seemingly inevitable fate of the city.

[Dave2002]

Cruise ships are incredibly bad for the environment, though. I queried this with David Mackay, and he assured me that his findings were that such ships are terrible polluters. Whatever one thinks about flying, large ships are worse.