Alex Pragnell, Ryde:

I read with interest the letter from C. M. Lansley, regarding second homes.

While interesting to read their family history, it isn't exactly relevant. 

They say their house had been on the market for more than six months, so they haven't prevented Islanders from buying it.

This isn't strictly true. If Islanders can't afford to buy them, then of course it will be there for more than six months.

They fail to realise that by purchasing second homes it pushes the price up for everyone else.

What is low cost to overners, doesn't equate to being low cost here. Especially for people from places like London.

It's all very well saying the council is going to double the council tax for second home owners, but if you can afford a second home in the first place, it's not going to be an inconvenience.

If second home owners really wanted to do something for the area and its economy, they would stay in hotels or other local holiday sites.

They would support the area they claim to love so much that way, which is a lot more beneficial.

Before we bury our remaining countryside under tarmac and concrete, we need to maximize the use of our current housing.

If they are going to insist on buying second homes here, they need to double the council tax plus an additional tax of a proportion of what the property is worth, a year.

Then you can put that money into renovation of the derelict properties, which can be sold to local families.

This seems to be a sensible way forward. If they cause damage to communities, surely it's only fair they're made to pay for that "privilege".