well F the locals. Presumably the locals sold the properties to the others. If they didn’t want people coming they should have bought the properties themselves. I reiterate F’em
I agree. It’s not like they’re pitching tents on the beaches and sidewalks like they’re in S.F.
These people own property there, they have every right to reside there.
There are things this article hasn't addressed that shore towns have to deal with. Its not just a "don't come down here and infect us".
In the off-season, many of the businesses, including liquor stores, restaurants, bars, stores etc. close down because the year round population can't sustain the volume of businesses that operate "in-season". Even the grocery stores cut way back on what gets put on the shelves, what is brought in for fresh fruits/veggies/meats etc.
Unless you live year round in a shore community, you probably don't think of things the way the locals do. Any substantial non-seasonal increase in demand overruns the normal supply of goods and services. On the other hand, staying where they have their permanent residences, the infrastructure of goods and services is built to accommodate them there.
So while you may say F'em, there are legitimate reasons for the locals to feel the way they do.
If they didn’t want people coming they should have bought the properties themselves.
= = =
Maybe they could not afford to.
Maybe increasing property values (and taxes) will drive out the locals.