2 ms·
Why not just crank up the port fees for cruise ships enough to cover for this gap? Although perhaps it would be effectively the same as outright banning the sh
by yreg 3y ago
Why not just crank up the port fees for cruise ships enough to cover for this gap?
Although perhaps it would be effectively the same as outright banning the ships.
- cguess 3y agoBecause the knock on effects aren't just in the tourists not spending money, but clogging the streets (go to central Amsterdam on a Saturday evening sometime, it's insane) causing trouble, and even if there's money that's not going to the cooks, servers, museum docents etc.
- vidarh 3y agoThere is likely still a price at which point the strain would be reduced enough that the taxes levied on those left would be worth it if e.g. used to improve local services or reduce local residential services fees or taxes. But maybe it's not worth the hassle to figure out for some cities.
- rightbyte 3y agoThe port could be owned by the state or some private entity, not the city. I think e.g. the Venice port is owned by the state.
- stevage 3y agoGovernment can always add levies if it wants.