Community Access to Private arenas?

[palo1]

Quite .

Mmm, I think this group of folks feel that their knowledge and advice about 'life' is the key asset that they are sharing. I don't doubt their sincerity actually but there may not be much reception for it...

 

[ycbm]

I suppose the argument is that the reason it was on the market so long was that pressures from outside meant it was priced out of the local market even after the reduction.

That's not a criticism of you, I bought in London where I could afford and now 15 years later is in it's way to gentrification, ordinary people are priced out and I was arguably a part of that. We can't step outside the system and buy and live where we can.

I don't take it as a criticism, because it was on the market for so long because it was inaccessible in winter before 4wd SUVs were cars everyone could afford and because the builder who renovated it went bust after two agreed sales fell through due to snow. It sold at the same price as an average new build on the big housing estate down on the plain, we didn't prevent any local from buying it by offering more money than they were spending.

We will, of course, be part of pricing others out of the market when we sell at its current market valuation, which has doubled due partly to work we have done but largely to broadband and climate change, but I'm sure nobody reasonable would blame anyone for accepting the price they are offered for their house.

What I would like to see is more local bylaws restricting sales to local buyers. I've seen one or two in my current property search. In the second home and Airbnb hotspots, I think there needs to be a lot more.
.
.

 

[Goldenstar]

I don’t understand why people think that steps that restrict people’s mobility would be fair .
Why should people be tied to live where they where born it’s medieval.
Should only those born on London as an example live there ?

 

[teapot]

I don’t understand why people think that steps that restrict people’s mobility would be fair .
Why should people be tied to live where they where born it’s medieval.
Should only those born on London as an example live there ?

I think it's more about people moving into areas they don't know, then moan when church bells toll, or farming begins to smells.

 

[stangs]

(Sorry OP, completely derailing your thread.)

I think the main issue involved in the issue of urban -> rural migration is when city folk buy holiday homes in rural areas (contributing to an increase in price), don't contribute to the community in any way, and expect that life in the countryside will fit their urban criteria. And then there is the smaller issue of some (not much - it definitely depends on the area) 'reverse snobbery' towards people from urban areas. Speaking as a born and bred Londoner, most people I've met in rural areas have been lovely to me - especially if they see me as some hiker - but, in more social circumstances, I've had a fair of share comments implying that I'm just city slicker who has no right to comment on the countryside or rural activities, even if all I'm doing is talking about horses (which I'd like to think I'm a little qualified to talk about!).

I dream of moving permanently to the middle of nowhere somewhere in the countryside, but I'm sure that there are areas where I wouldn't be welcome. At the same time, I do think it's good that local occupancy conditions and agricultural occupancy conditions are becoming more common, but, like Goldenstar said, people ought to be able to live wherever they want.

 

[criso]

I don’t understand why people think that steps that restrict people’s mobility would be fair .
Why should people be tied to live where they where born it’s medieval.
Should only those born on London as an example live there ?

No but it is part of a trend that prices local people out of the market.

A couple upstairs in my block had a little 2 bedroom flat. It was ok when the 1st baby came but when the 2nd turned out to be twins then 5 people in the flat was going to be a little crowded. So they moved out of London. Their 2 bed flat got them a house and garden elsewhere. What choice did they have? They were never going to be able to afford any sort of house in London.

Someone from work did something similar moving far enough to get a little land after calculating the optimum commuting time, cost of travel card and saving on mortgage took him to Lincolnshire.

Both commuted so had a London wage to subsidise their mortgage.

Maybe a different way of looking at it is the people who push prices up and push locals out of the market are there because they've been pushed out of where they were.

Second homes and buy to let are a different matter however.

As I said I'm aware that I moved to a slightly different part of London to be able to buy and was part of a trend that has pushed prices up there

 

[SEL]

Growing vegetables in polytunnels is a thing most environmentalists will support .
We will need acres no miles more of them them to go forward to the meat free future they envisage us having .

Seen those in Spain. Grim.

 

[planete]

Seen those in Spain. Grim.

Yes, and the amount of plastic waste in the countryside around is appalling.

 

[palo1]

Growing vegetables in polytunnels is a thing most environmentalists will support .
We will need acres no miles more of them them to go forward to the meat free future they envisage us having .
We will also need huge factories to produce meat free protein .

I don't think most environmentalists want to see miles of polytunnels but then environmentals come in different colours and styles!! Not all environmentalists want to support meat free protein produced in huge factories either. There are so many different approaches and difficult decisions and choices that there is no universal view of how to move forward.

 

[palo1]

Yes, and the amount of plastic waste in the countryside around is appalling.

Yes and that is definitely not supportable or sustainable long term so the miles and miles of polytunnels probably won't last as a method into the future.

 

[paddy555]

I don’t understand why people think that steps that restrict people’s mobility would be fair .
Why should people be tied to live where they where born it’s medieval.
Should only those born on London as an example live there ?

there is already the biggest step in place that restricts where people can live. Money. Quite simply if you are poor and live rurally you won't be able to afford to live there. Larger properties have gone to those with money which usually means from the city. Small properties that may have been possible for rental have gone for holiday lets or holiday homes.

So the question really is should only those with sufficient money be allowed to live in the country?

 

[paddy555]

(Sorry OP, completely derailing your thread.)

I think the main issue involved in the issue of urban -> rural migration is when city folk buy holiday homes in rural areas (contributing to an increase in price), don't contribute to the community in any way, and expect that life in the countryside will fit their urban criteria. And then there is the smaller issue of some (not much - it definitely depends on the area) 'reverse snobbery' towards people from urban areas.

I'm not sure it is reverse snobbery but we do seem to end up with some very strange people in this rural migration. A local farmer always used to say let them "winter over for a couple of years" before he had much to do with them. He was probably right as quite a few were leaving by that stage.
We did have one lot who reversed that situation, lived close to use and told us they didn't bother to speak to locals for 2 years after their move. We just smiled and thought you are going to need the "locals" before they need you. They didn't stay very long.

 

[Goldenstar]

there is already the biggest step in place that restricts where people can live. Money. Quite simply if you are poor and live rurally you won't be able to afford to live there. Larger properties have gone to those with money which usually means from the city. Small properties that may have been possible for rental have gone for holiday lets or holiday homes.

So the question really is should only those with sufficient money be allowed to live in the country?[/QUOTE


Certainly round here you can still buy more affordable housing but it won’t be in the best streets of the most sought after villages .
Nearer to Newcastle the prettiest villages are very pricey but they are full of people working locally in Newcastle and I don’t see the issue with that .
And I don’t get the blame the incomers thing it’s more than not locals who sell these homes and the village where our other house is villagers often bought several cottages and now rent them and live off the income .
So round here it is more nuanced but it’s certainly true that the more money you have the more freedom you have to choose .

 

[canteron]

The one thing we know from the hunting thread is that Palo is not afraid of a bit of controversy - maybe that’s a good thing and brings a bit of air to HHO, but buyer beware!

 

[Fred66]

I think community arenas would be fantastic if more widespread and would probably reduce the number of people spending money on private arenas which would be the same outcome and more popular by the sound of it! I wonder how many of us would use a community facility in preference to investing in our own?

People investing in a private arena normally do so because they want the ability to ride at home on a fairly frequent basis at a time that suits them. You can hire arenas if you want adhoc occasional use. I can’t imagine it would reduce private arena installation much as it would not negate the reasons people want one, it would probably reduce people having to travel as far to hire one

 

[palo1]

The one thing we know from the hunting thread is that Palo is not afraid of a bit of controversy - maybe that’s a good thing and brings a bit of air to HHO, but buyer beware!

i wasn't intending to be controversial at all here (and not generally actually) !

 

[Tiddlypom]

People investing in a private arena normally do so because they want the ability to ride at home on a fairly frequent basis at a time that suits them. You can hire arenas if you want adhoc occasional use. I can’t imagine it would reduce private arena installation much as it would not negate the reasons people want one, it would probably reduce people having to travel as far to hire one

This was me.

We didn't have the cash saved to pay for our arena outright in 2012, but I did a financial calculation to present to OH. The costs and time of booking and trailering up to hire a local commercial arena 5 miles away (not possible to hack to due to main roads) vs the freedom of having one here at home to use as and when.

I still can't quite believe that I've got my own arena available 24/7, it's wonderful. As I posted before, I've tried letting others use it - it didn't work mainly due to access problems and invasion of privacy.

 

[Goldenstar]

I think it's more about people moving into areas they don't know, then moan when church bells toll, or farming begins to smells.

The thing to do with those people is to ignore them .

 

[Goldenstar]

The thing about all these thoughts about what’s unnecessary is that these environmentalists never care about the family’s being supported or the mortgages being paid by the people who build the arenas or tennis courts .

 

[mariew]

Even where we were in Essex, just outside of the M25 and still in commuter belt, but in farmland, things changed dramatically in the 10 years we lived there. Basically Londoners selling up wanting a bigger house but not wanting the farmland experience. They complained about manure smell, bird scarers (my pooch can't taaake any more), tractors through the village after dark at harvest time etc etc. They even generally put 6 foot fencing in to block out views of the fields, wtf?!

So not exclusively a phenomenon in more rural areas as we were pretty much greater London. Most yards were sold up and made into housing by the time we left a couple of years ago thanks to that govt legislation they introduced.

 

[cauda equina]

I wonder what the environmentalists' take is on all the 5/6/7 bed 'executive homes' so beloved by developers now
How many families actually need 7 bedrooms?

 

[MotherOfChickens]

I wonder what the environmentalists' take is on all the 5/6/7 bed 'executive homes' so beloved by developers now
How many families actually need 7 bedrooms?

I expect they don’t like those either.


I agree it’s a niche thing to get upset about given the acres of concrete being laid and the hundreds of trees being destroyed even when protected. But I don’t see why these environmentalists are getting so much stick for an idea, one which if you aren’t from an equestrian background probably sounds very reasonable. Have the idea, discuss the idea, discount the idea ?.

 

[palo1]

I expect they don’t like those either.


I agree it’s a niche thing to get upset about given the acres of concrete being laid and the hundreds of trees being destroyed even when protected. But I don’t see why these environmentalists are getting so much stick for an idea, one which if you aren’t from an equestrian background probably sounds very reasonable. Have the idea, discuss the idea, discount the idea ?.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here! That is exactly how I received it and I can understand the query. I do think it is important to ask questions and the fact is that we can't all go on having everything we want so understanding our own and others priorities is useful. I like communal stuff and for the cost of an arena here (for example) I would never see my money back in relation to what tootling off to a local EC with a friend or for a lesson I can do. It's not a question for me tbh but I understand how others might feel about their own arena. I think too, that niche irritations are absolutely the stuff of every community, whether it is where your neighbour insists on parking/putting their bins etc or why 'another' horsey person needs an arena.

One of my non horsey neighbours assumed till recently that everyone with an arena was some kind of 'professional'. They were amazed when I explained...

 

[catkin]

This was me.

We didn't have the cash saved to pay for our arena outright in 2012, but I did a financial calculation to present to OH. The costs and time of booking and trailering up to hire a local commercial arena 5 miles away (not possible to hack to due to main roads) vs the freedom of having one here at home to use as and when.

I still can't quite believe that I've got my own arena available 24/7, it's wonderful. As I posted before, I've tried letting others use it - it didn't work mainly due to access problems and invasion of privacy.

We did a similar calculation when we built our school. The other consideration was actually an environmental one - we have an old grass ley with conservation value. The sand school meant we could keep ponies off the grass at times when it could be damaged and the ponies could have some turnout for their welfare. The surrounding area was planted up and is managed as a wildlife corridor.

Perhaps the community goods debate could be widened to include conservation areas which work precisely because they have no public access and act as wildlife refuges?

 

[tristar]

But you are not 'investing in society and people's dreams', because access is still limited to the few, who are relatively wealthy compared to many others. To make this really a project for society you would have to be able to also provide horses for those who could not afford them. Also access would be very limited even among horse owners to those who happened to live in the immediate vicinity, or who had access to transport. In general if you can afford to transport your horses you can afford to pay for arena hire or keep them somewhere with facilities. Of course some would be within hacking distance - how many? 30? 50? But many of these would have facilities available at yards and would not use it. A pretty big investment to provide land, build, maintain, insure etc for that tiny number of beneficiaries. It is not cheap to build an arena, and who would police it, make sure that it was cleaned after use? Would it be just for flatwork or you would also suggest that the public funds a set of jumps? What about other disciplines? Should a polo field also be provided? Cross country course? Sure everyone says 'I love horses', but that is not the same as saying that they would want their taxes spent on providing facilities for owners who should be funding themselves. I love rabbits but I don't want to pay for the construction of a nice big run for next door's pets.

If we want to keep horses it is our business to finance our hobby. There are many demands upon the public purse, especially at present, and I cannot think of anything less worthy, or less likely to win public support, than an arena to allow me to exercise my horses while being subsidised by the majority who are less well off than I am.

equine activity covers the broadest spectrum of society, and is very far from the picture you want to paint, people from the most shall we say modest of backgrounds to the queen of england own horses

there has been such riding surfaces available for over 25 years, so i am told, and what a wonderful facility for any pony mad kid or adult who needs to work their animal not just in the wet winter but in the summer when the ground is hard and meet up with other like minded people

there is nothing elitist about owning a horse or pony, i have known many working families with several kids who also had up to 6 ponies, and looked after them well and flatly refused to sell any.

i have built several good surfaces, none were expensive, all were as good as new after several years, low maintenance and functioned well

i feel you have roamed off into the realms of thinking something is not possible, while i think only of what could be possible

 

[ycbm]

any pony mad kid or adult who needs to work their animal

Nobody needs to keep a horse, it's a minority activity sport people choose to follow.

i think only of what could be possible

It's all possible, Tristar, but if you want public riding arenas provided as well as potholes fixed and home care delivered how much council tax would you like to pay?
.

 

[Winters100]

equine activity covers the broadest spectrum of society, and is very far from the picture you want to paint, people from the most shall we say modest of backgrounds to the queen of england own horses

there has been such riding surfaces available for over 25 years, so i am told, and what a wonderful facility for any pony mad kid or adult who needs to work their animal not just in the wet winter but in the summer when the ground is hard and meet up with other like minded people

there is nothing elitist about owning a horse or pony, i have known many working families with several kids who also had up to 6 ponies, and looked after them well and flatly refused to sell any.

i have built several good surfaces, none were expensive, all were as good as new after several years, low maintenance and functioned well

i feel you have roamed off into the realms of thinking something is not possible, while i think only of what could be possible

I did not say that it is not possible, just that it is not a worthy cause, not an appropriate use of public funds, and should not be provided by forcing individuals who work to build their own facilities to give them away for free.

From a google search there are 2.4 million riders in the UK, 374,000 households owning horses, and 3 million people suffering from food insecurity. I doubt that those who suffer from food insecurity fall into the category that you describe of those from modest backgrounds who keep horses. Keeping horses is not a right, and it is certainly not something which should be publicly funded.

Even if you believe that you can build and maintain arenas without incurring significant expense what would the catchment area be for each? How many people would use them regularly? Who would manage how they were shared and pick up after those who failed to do so? Who would insure them? Would you also provide parking areas? Would they be free to use? And in which case would they not just end up benefiting local yards who would be able to charge higher fees because of the proximity of a 'public' arena within hacking distance?

It is not impossible, but highly impractical, and would also be a gross misuse of public funds.

 

[tristar]

Nobody needs to keep a horse, it's a minority activity sport people choose to follow.



It's all possible, Tristar, but if you want public riding arenas provided as well as potholes fixed and home care delivered how much council tax would you like to pay?
.

what i want to see is all wasted money spent on something useful including riding surfaces

 

[tristar]

I did not say that it is not possible, just that it is not a worthy cause, not an appropriate use of public funds, and should not be provided by forcing individuals who work to build their own facilities to give them away for free.

From a google search there are 2.4 million riders in the UK, 374,000 households owning horses, and 3 million people suffering from food insecurity. I doubt that those who suffer from food insecurity fall into the category that you describe of those from modest backgrounds who keep horses. Keeping horses is not a right, and it is certainly not something which should be publicly funded.

Even if you believe that you can build and maintain arenas without incurring significant expense what would the catchment area be for each? How many people would use them regularly? Who would manage how they were shared and pick up after those who failed to do so? Who would insure them? Would you also provide parking areas? Would they be free to use? And in which case would they not just end up benefiting local yards who would be able to charge higher fees because of the proximity of a 'public' arena within hacking distance?

It is not impossible, but highly impractical, and would also be a gross misuse of public funds.

your way of thinking leaves me cold and unconvinced


perhaps you think we should sell all our horses to feed the hungry? well i think we should redistribute all the assets to provide for all

 

[Winters100]

your way of thinking leaves me cold and unconvinced


perhaps you think we should sell all our horses to feed the hungry? well i think we should redistribute all the assets to provide for all

You want to 'redistribute all the assets to provide for all'? Then it is you who would be closer to saying that we should sell our horses to feed the hungry. I am simply saying that if we want to engage in an expensive hobby we should fund it ourselves and not expect others to do so. A redistribution of assets would certainly not see horse owners benefiting from free arenas - far from it!