7 ms·

> Some daytrippers are exempt from paying the entry fee, although they will still have to book. These include residents of the Veneto region, students, and thos

> Some daytrippers are exempt from paying the entry fee, although they will still have to book. These include residents of the Veneto region, students, and those visiting family members in the city. This seems against basic human rights of free circulation.

klipt 4y ago
Is that a right? In the US you have to pay to visit most federal and state parks.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Everything's a right these days.
- Spivak 4y ago
  But if you tried to charge for or otherwise deny access into a city in the US you would be in extremely shaky ground legally.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > if you tried to charge for or otherwise deny access into a city in the US you would be in extremely shaky ground Try to get to Manhattan without paying the city a toll, for a helicopter permit, or a public transit ticket. I'll wait.
    - parkingrift 4y ago
      You can walk or bike across the George Washington bridge. Now you can stop waiting.
    - schoen 4y ago
      https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/bridges.shtml https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/bridges.sh... > NYC DOT owns, operates, and maintains 789 bridges and tunnels throughout New York, including the Brooklyn, Ed Koch Queensboro, Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges, 24 movable bridges, and four tunnels. There are no tolls on bridges operated by NYC DOT. Some bridges in New York City are operated by other agencies. Also, you can walk across many of the bridges to Manhattan: https://foursquare.com/beelzebibi/list/bridges-to-walk-across--ny https://foursquare.com/beelzebibi/list/bridges-to-walk-acros... Also, if you could get to Staten Island (e.g. by walking over the Goethals Bridge), you could take the Staten Island Ferry to Manhattan for free! https://www.siferry.com/ https://www.siferry.com/
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        First, two points that are less relevant, but I feel like I need to respond to: 1) It might be true that you can get from other boroughs to Manhattan without paying a bridge toll, but getting to those other boroughs without paying a toll along the way is hard. 2) Walking or biking also limits the areas that you can come from Both of these combined are equivalent to Venice's free tickets for people in the surrounding zone. But, in focusing on bridges and tunnels, you missed the important new development in NYC. Manhattan is going to charge people a toll directly for using the streets to drive. I think it's six months old at this point. So, yes, if you live close enough you don't need a car, you can get there. But I challenge a non-NYC resident to do so in a realistic way that doesn't involve mass transit.
        random314 4y ago
        I see that the goal post has moved.
        parkingrift 4y ago
        You moved the goalposts across the planet. Manhattan is an island. You can walk or bike across almost every bridge free of charge. If you want to drive into the city you’ll have to pay a one way bridge toll. It’s not a fee per person per day, it’s a one way fee to cross an expensive bridge or tunnel. On the tolling it actually hasn’t happened yet and it’s only applicable south of 60th. Free to drive anywhere in NYC at no additional cost except for the dense traffic riddled area of lower Manhattan. You could also fly directly into NYC and move about by the magic of walking. It’s free. Unfortunately, airfare is also not free and so based on your logic NYC has an airfare surcharge. I recently took a train from Rome to Tuscany. I was outraged that Tuscany charged me a train fee to enter the area.
        HWR_14 4y ago
        How did I move the goalposts? I mentioned mass transit options in my first post. I wasn't aware of the limitations on the tolls inside Manhattan to below 60th. I can see how you may have focused on the bridge/tunnel tolls (and maybe I should have been more explicit), but that's the word they have been using for those charges. > Free to drive anywhere in NYC at no additional cost except for the dense traffic riddled area of lower Manhattan. This is similar to how you are free to go anywhere in the PATREVE metro area except for the dense, canal-filled area of Venice. > Unfortunately, airfare is also not free and so based on your logic NYC has an airfare surcharge. Apparently LGA (unlike JFK or EWR) is considered walkable. I didn't think it was, but it is with 3 hours. AFAIK, unlike tolls and mass transit, no portion of the airfare goes to NYC, nor does NYC have any direct control over the costs. So it's a good counterexample.
robbrown451 4y ago
How do you arrive at "free circulation" being a "basic human right." I've never heard that. Seems pretty common to not necessarily be allowed to go anywhere you please just because you want to. Maybe it is an extreme example, but I know I don't want people freely circulating inside my house.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Because it literally is a right within the EU. The US calls it the right of free movement which is a derived right from the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution. If you think this wasn't a right have y'all never wondered why states don't simply ban people they don't want? As for the justification for why it's a basic human right https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... > Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel > It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    What are the limits to this right? Let's say you have a right to travel down a road with a bridge on it. Then 1000 people decide to travel across it at once and it collapses. Obviously each individual doing their own thing isn't a problem, but when a lot of people do that thing it becomes a problem. We all love the idea of freedom, but it always requires responsibility. When individuals do not take this responsibility then issues like the tragedy of the commons manifest.
    - petre 4y ago
      So put a fee on the bridge or a queuing system. People are still 'free' to move on the bridge. In fact bridge taxes and highway taxes are quite common.
    - 4y ago
MattGaiser 4y ago
No such right exists.
- Spivak 4y ago
  https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/pages/glossary/right-free-movement_en https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/pages/glossary/right-free-... https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-movement-of-persons https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-...
  - imgabe 4y ago
    That only talks about being able to travel from one country to another within the EU. Not that any country can't restrict movement within one area in it's borders. I'm sure you can't freely wander onto a military base in any EU country and claim it's your right of free movement to go anywhere you want.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Yes but on the other extreme if a state in the EU tried to create a 1 acre free movement zone within the country and then restricted movement everywhere else they would run afoul of the law. It's not black and white. The question is where restricting access to an entire city lives.
      - imgabe 4y ago
        The question is what constitutes restriction. They aren't telling anybody they can't go there at all, just that they have to make a reservation and pay a fee. Likewise you can travel into any EU country, but that doesn't mean they can't require you to show a passport.
      - jazzyjackson 4y ago
        well there are such things as gated communities, where only residents are allowed through the gate. it's not difficult to imagine this being extended to a kind of special-economic-zone where only members are allowed. in fact I believe that's a plot point in snow crash.
djvdq 4y ago
It's not. National parks, museums and lots and lots of places requires tickets to enter, are they also against freedom of movement? No one forbids you to go there, no one forbids you to stay and live there. Treat this city as a one, big, crowdy museum.
- throwntoday 4y ago
  Putting a city where people live behind a paywall is a bit different than a national park or museum.
  - petre 4y ago
    The locals and visitors with a hotel booking are extempt from paying the fee.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Also family of the locals visiting them
  - herbst 4y ago
    There are people living in some national parks or amusement parks. It's not that weird if done right.
unethical_ban 4y ago
Your point seems a bit overwrought, but I agree more with you than those arguing about housing rights and whatnot. In what other civilized city in the planet is access charged? Disney? Cars in Manhattan? De facto taxes via taxi fare in some cities? It isn't a huge deal in my opinion, but it is novel.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Congestion charges seem common enough. If that can be applied to cars why not just people? And places like Venice are rather special exceptions we can accept and live with. It is clear that something should be done for public good, also the now limited number of tourists.
albertopv 4y ago
I live in Veneto. Once I went to a friend's friend small, vertival apartment in Burano Island, door at ground level directly in front of a public square. He lives there few months of the year. He told us how tourists went into his house thinking it was an attraction, making photos of his stuff like crazy. Once he had to threat an asian tourist with a knife to get him out. This is long overdue, I hope they succeed. Tourists has lost all respect for an old, hard to live, beautiful city, and for the (shrinking number of) people that still live there. On weekends from april to october Venice is almost unbearable for normal people.
- mattlondon 4y ago
  Why don't they just lock the door? I get that there is the view of "but why should I have to?" but that seems like a fairly simple solution to people entering a door they shouldn't. Plus obviously if it reduces violent threats from your friend then the world is also a slightly better place as a result.
  - albertopv 4y ago
    Would you go in a house without permission?
    - mattlondon 4y ago
      I would if I thought it was open to the public (e.g. a museum or gallery or exhibition or something). Locks have been a thing for a long time so this is not exactly a new problem.
      - albertopv 4y ago
        It clearly was NOT a museum or gallery. It was a place like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4857329,12.4147932,3a,75y,345.55h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1ganTZTvZK-L-Ku2zS6OTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4857329,12.4147932,3a,75y,34... Does that seems a museum? That's the problem with Venice (stupid) tourists, they think it's a open air museum, it's not, it still is a city with people living there.

klipt 4y ago

Is that a right? In the US you have to pay to visit most federal and state parks.

bombcar 4y ago
Everything's a right these days.
Spivak 4y ago
But if you tried to charge for or otherwise deny access into a city in the US you would be in extremely shaky ground legally.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > if you tried to charge for or otherwise deny access into a city in the US you would be in extremely shaky ground Try to get to Manhattan without paying the city a toll, for a helicopter permit, or a public transit ticket. I'll wait.
  - parkingrift 4y ago
    You can walk or bike across the George Washington bridge. Now you can stop waiting.
  - schoen 4y ago
    https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/bridges.shtml https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/bridges.sh... > NYC DOT owns, operates, and maintains 789 bridges and tunnels throughout New York, including the Brooklyn, Ed Koch Queensboro, Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges, 24 movable bridges, and four tunnels. There are no tolls on bridges operated by NYC DOT. Some bridges in New York City are operated by other agencies. Also, you can walk across many of the bridges to Manhattan: https://foursquare.com/beelzebibi/list/bridges-to-walk-across--ny https://foursquare.com/beelzebibi/list/bridges-to-walk-acros... Also, if you could get to Staten Island (e.g. by walking over the Goethals Bridge), you could take the Staten Island Ferry to Manhattan for free! https://www.siferry.com/ https://www.siferry.com/
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      First, two points that are less relevant, but I feel like I need to respond to: 1) It might be true that you can get from other boroughs to Manhattan without paying a bridge toll, but getting to those other boroughs without paying a toll along the way is hard. 2) Walking or biking also limits the areas that you can come from Both of these combined are equivalent to Venice's free tickets for people in the surrounding zone. But, in focusing on bridges and tunnels, you missed the important new development in NYC. Manhattan is going to charge people a toll directly for using the streets to drive. I think it's six months old at this point. So, yes, if you live close enough you don't need a car, you can get there. But I challenge a non-NYC resident to do so in a realistic way that doesn't involve mass transit.
      - random314 4y ago
        I see that the goal post has moved.
      - parkingrift 4y ago
        You moved the goalposts across the planet. Manhattan is an island. You can walk or bike across almost every bridge free of charge. If you want to drive into the city you’ll have to pay a one way bridge toll. It’s not a fee per person per day, it’s a one way fee to cross an expensive bridge or tunnel. On the tolling it actually hasn’t happened yet and it’s only applicable south of 60th. Free to drive anywhere in NYC at no additional cost except for the dense traffic riddled area of lower Manhattan. You could also fly directly into NYC and move about by the magic of walking. It’s free. Unfortunately, airfare is also not free and so based on your logic NYC has an airfare surcharge. I recently took a train from Rome to Tuscany. I was outraged that Tuscany charged me a train fee to enter the area.
        HWR_14 4y ago
        How did I move the goalposts? I mentioned mass transit options in my first post. I wasn't aware of the limitations on the tolls inside Manhattan to below 60th. I can see how you may have focused on the bridge/tunnel tolls (and maybe I should have been more explicit), but that's the word they have been using for those charges. > Free to drive anywhere in NYC at no additional cost except for the dense traffic riddled area of lower Manhattan. This is similar to how you are free to go anywhere in the PATREVE metro area except for the dense, canal-filled area of Venice. > Unfortunately, airfare is also not free and so based on your logic NYC has an airfare surcharge. Apparently LGA (unlike JFK or EWR) is considered walkable. I didn't think it was, but it is with 3 hours. AFAIK, unlike tolls and mass transit, no portion of the airfare goes to NYC, nor does NYC have any direct control over the costs. So it's a good counterexample.

robbrown451 4y ago

How do you arrive at "free circulation" being a "basic human right." I've never heard that. Seems pretty common to not necessarily be allowed to go anywhere you please just because you want to. Maybe it is an extreme example, but I know I don't want people freely circulating inside my house.

Spivak 4y ago
Because it literally is a right within the EU. The US calls it the right of free movement which is a derived right from the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution. If you think this wasn't a right have y'all never wondered why states don't simply ban people they don't want? As for the justification for why it's a basic human right https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... > Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel > It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
- pixl97 4y ago
  What are the limits to this right? Let's say you have a right to travel down a road with a bridge on it. Then 1000 people decide to travel across it at once and it collapses. Obviously each individual doing their own thing isn't a problem, but when a lot of people do that thing it becomes a problem. We all love the idea of freedom, but it always requires responsibility. When individuals do not take this responsibility then issues like the tragedy of the commons manifest.
  - petre 4y ago
    So put a fee on the bridge or a queuing system. People are still 'free' to move on the bridge. In fact bridge taxes and highway taxes are quite common.
  - 4y ago

MattGaiser 4y ago

No such right exists.

Spivak 4y ago
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/pages/glossary/right-free-movement_en https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/pages/glossary/right-free-... https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-movement-of-persons https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-...
- imgabe 4y ago
  That only talks about being able to travel from one country to another within the EU. Not that any country can't restrict movement within one area in it's borders. I'm sure you can't freely wander onto a military base in any EU country and claim it's your right of free movement to go anywhere you want.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Yes but on the other extreme if a state in the EU tried to create a 1 acre free movement zone within the country and then restricted movement everywhere else they would run afoul of the law. It's not black and white. The question is where restricting access to an entire city lives.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      The question is what constitutes restriction. They aren't telling anybody they can't go there at all, just that they have to make a reservation and pay a fee. Likewise you can travel into any EU country, but that doesn't mean they can't require you to show a passport.
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      well there are such things as gated communities, where only residents are allowed through the gate. it's not difficult to imagine this being extended to a kind of special-economic-zone where only members are allowed. in fact I believe that's a plot point in snow crash.

djvdq 4y ago

It's not. National parks, museums and lots and lots of places requires tickets to enter, are they also against freedom of movement? No one forbids you to go there, no one forbids you to stay and live there. Treat this city as a one, big, crowdy museum.

throwntoday 4y ago
Putting a city where people live behind a paywall is a bit different than a national park or museum.
- petre 4y ago
  The locals and visitors with a hotel booking are extempt from paying the fee.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Also family of the locals visiting them
- herbst 4y ago
  There are people living in some national parks or amusement parks. It's not that weird if done right.

unethical_ban 4y ago

Your point seems a bit overwrought, but I agree more with you than those arguing about housing rights and whatnot. In what other civilized city in the planet is access charged? Disney? Cars in Manhattan? De facto taxes via taxi fare in some cities? It isn't a huge deal in my opinion, but it is novel.

Ekaros 4y ago
Congestion charges seem common enough. If that can be applied to cars why not just people? And places like Venice are rather special exceptions we can accept and live with. It is clear that something should be done for public good, also the now limited number of tourists.

albertopv 4y ago

I live in Veneto. Once I went to a friend's friend small, vertival apartment in Burano Island, door at ground level directly in front of a public square. He lives there few months of the year. He told us how tourists went into his house thinking it was an attraction, making photos of his stuff like crazy. Once he had to threat an asian tourist with a knife to get him out. This is long overdue, I hope they succeed. Tourists has lost all respect for an old, hard to live, beautiful city, and for the (shrinking number of) people that still live there. On weekends from april to october Venice is almost unbearable for normal people.

mattlondon 4y ago
Why don't they just lock the door? I get that there is the view of "but why should I have to?" but that seems like a fairly simple solution to people entering a door they shouldn't. Plus obviously if it reduces violent threats from your friend then the world is also a slightly better place as a result.
- albertopv 4y ago
  Would you go in a house without permission?
  - mattlondon 4y ago
    I would if I thought it was open to the public (e.g. a museum or gallery or exhibition or something). Locks have been a thing for a long time so this is not exactly a new problem.
    - albertopv 4y ago
      It clearly was NOT a museum or gallery. It was a place like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4857329,12.4147932,3a,75y,345.55h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1ganTZTvZK-L-Ku2zS6OTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4857329,12.4147932,3a,75y,34... Does that seems a museum? That's the problem with Venice (stupid) tourists, they think it's a open air museum, it's not, it still is a city with people living there.