4 ms·

Local people really need to price out a lot of the tourists. You really need to implement a high tax/price, this would cut down on the tourists and allow locals

by socrates1998 7y ago

Local people really need to price out a lot of the tourists. You really need to implement a high tax/price, this would cut down on the tourists and allow locals to reap more benefits. I don't know if it is still like this, but when I was in Cinque Terra in the Italian Riviera, there was a lot that seem to be structured into the place to have tourism, but not let it overwhelm the place. Building development was strictly controlled, so the hotel/hostel we stayed at was pretty simple and converted apartment building. There wasn't a ton to do in the towns, like jet skiiing or parasailing, so the appeal of the place didn't feel like a resort place. It really felt like people mainly made wine there with a few converted buildings that tourists stayed at. For me, the main draw of the place aside from the natural beauty was the lack of things that seem to cater to tourists. The second night I was there, we ran into a post-wedding party with locals at a bar who outnumbered the tourists probably 25-1. And that felt normal. Like, we were there seeing how these people lived and just got to enjoy the lifestyle and beauty for a few days. Contrast this to Venice, which was almost 100% tourism to me. It felt like a museum. Locals seemed almost out of place. While the buildings weren't new, everything in the town seemed to revolv around selling stuff to tourists.

mc_blue 7y ago
Interesting take! A couple thoughts: -Wouldn't a high tax/price on tourism have a drastic negative effect on the local economy? Your example of Venice - if you price out the majority of tourists, I would think the Venice economy would have to do a major pivot, something that would likely take some time and effort. -High tax/price on tourism is only pricing out the tourists that can't afford the tax. I agree it's one of the easier solutions to implement, but something doesn't feel right about tourist destinations becoming destinations only for those rich enough to afford the tax. In addition, I don't necessarily believe there is a correlation between wealth and environmentally friendly tourist behavior. In other words, are wealthier tourists really that more likely to treat the tourist destination in a more positive way than lower/middle class tourists?
- socrates1998 7y ago
  For me, Venice is too far gone to change without significant pain to the local economy. The point of pricing isn't to completely eliminate tourism, it's to lower it. The goal is to find a price point that cuts down, but doesn't eliminate tourism. And while it would attract a higher wealth tourist, you can easily adjust the system to a lottery type where you have a certain percent of people who just buy access and others who won a lottery. They do this out west for river access during the summer. They don't want a whole bunch of people river rafting and destroying the river, so they have a lottery that you have to buy a ticket for. You lose the money if you don't win a license. This creates revenue without increasing the number of tourists. And it also creates a system where people who really want to go there, will buy a ticket without a guarantee of a spot. And,when they do go, they tend to be much better quality tourists since. I know people who have been buying tickets for almost a decade and haven't gotten a spot. Something like this is very effective at keeping up revenue and decreasing the number of tourists.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    That solution could be rephrased as: “Make poor people poorer”. The price increases won’t impact the wealthy, even if they did have to reduce their travel by 10-20%. But it will impact those that save (or pay-off) for years for their dream trip or honeymoon trip. My preferred approach would be more progressive than regressive: just make rich people poorer through income/capital/dividend taxes.
    - socrates1998 7y ago
      If you are poor, should you really be going to Venice? A reasonably priced lottery would give middle income people access and an even playing field against wealthy people. This system, combined with a limit on tourist infrastructure would cut down on excessive visitors and make it sustainable.
  - devdas 7y ago
    Only if you can price a ticket as a fraction of the net worth of people.
buboard 7y ago
Venice is a museum. I doubt it would be inhabited otherwise.

mc_blue 7y ago

Interesting take! A couple thoughts: -Wouldn't a high tax/price on tourism have a drastic negative effect on the local economy? Your example of Venice - if you price out the majority of tourists, I would think the Venice economy would have to do a major pivot, something that would likely take some time and effort. -High tax/price on tourism is only pricing out the tourists that can't afford the tax. I agree it's one of the easier solutions to implement, but something doesn't feel right about tourist destinations becoming destinations only for those rich enough to afford the tax. In addition, I don't necessarily believe there is a correlation between wealth and environmentally friendly tourist behavior. In other words, are wealthier tourists really that more likely to treat the tourist destination in a more positive way than lower/middle class tourists?

socrates1998 7y ago
For me, Venice is too far gone to change without significant pain to the local economy. The point of pricing isn't to completely eliminate tourism, it's to lower it. The goal is to find a price point that cuts down, but doesn't eliminate tourism. And while it would attract a higher wealth tourist, you can easily adjust the system to a lottery type where you have a certain percent of people who just buy access and others who won a lottery. They do this out west for river access during the summer. They don't want a whole bunch of people river rafting and destroying the river, so they have a lottery that you have to buy a ticket for. You lose the money if you don't win a license. This creates revenue without increasing the number of tourists. And it also creates a system where people who really want to go there, will buy a ticket without a guarantee of a spot. And,when they do go, they tend to be much better quality tourists since. I know people who have been buying tickets for almost a decade and haven't gotten a spot. Something like this is very effective at keeping up revenue and decreasing the number of tourists.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  That solution could be rephrased as: “Make poor people poorer”. The price increases won’t impact the wealthy, even if they did have to reduce their travel by 10-20%. But it will impact those that save (or pay-off) for years for their dream trip or honeymoon trip. My preferred approach would be more progressive than regressive: just make rich people poorer through income/capital/dividend taxes.
  - socrates1998 7y ago
    If you are poor, should you really be going to Venice? A reasonably priced lottery would give middle income people access and an even playing field against wealthy people. This system, combined with a limit on tourist infrastructure would cut down on excessive visitors and make it sustainable.
- devdas 7y ago
  Only if you can price a ticket as a fraction of the net worth of people.

buboard 7y ago

Venice is a museum. I doubt it would be inhabited otherwise.