6 ms·

On one hand, this may help reduce congestion in the city during peak tourism season. On the other hand, paying to visit an entire city (and literally having to

On one hand, this may help reduce congestion in the city during peak tourism season. On the other hand, paying to visit an entire city (and literally having to book a visit ahead of time) seems incredibly odd; I certainly am not a fan of the idea. If raising money via tourism is the goal, a more widespread tourism tax on food and services would likely both raise funds and partially reduce tourism overload, without the burden of requiring visitors to go through the arcane process of booking a visit.

speeder 4y ago
The goal is probably discourage short term visitors. In the many, MAAAAANY past HN topics about this, complaints about them were constant. Basically Cruise Ships barge in (sometimes literally, hitting other boats or even buildings), then people climb out, make a mess, annoy everyone (including the tourists that are on hotels), then leave again, since they are sleeping on the ship anyway. Lots of stories here on HN of how the day tourists often don't even spend any money, they probably paid to eat on the cruise ship, so they just climb out, take photos, roam around, pollute, then go eat and sleep back on the ship and don't buy anything.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  Seems like cruise ships would be a good target for additional taxes.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    They do, a megaship pays about $100k per day to dock, less to anchor nearby.
- Spinosaurus 4y ago
  Why not simply prohibit cruise ships in the nearby port? That seems like a far, far easier solution if that is in fact the root cause of the problem.
  - ziofill 4y ago
    It’s been advocated for many years, but the maritime transportation industry is very powerful in Italy.
  - MattGaiser 4y ago
    Presumably you want to discourage people who won’t spend as much. Cruises are costly.
  - iav 4y ago
    Cruise ship arrivals were only 7% of Venice visitors in 2018. They have already been diverted to a nearby industrial port since reopening after the pandemic
- bogota 4y ago
  Same thing happens all over. Cruise ships and the people on them make otherwise enjoyable places absolutely terrible. After my first experience with it it’s something I check now and I won’t go to any place that cruise ships frequent.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  So much for the freedom of movement, I guess. Darn those people-who-arent-me wanting to go to the cool places I want to go to. They should be kicked out so that people like me can enjoy the places without all that riff-raff running amok
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    i mostly agree with your tack here, but there's something to be said for pulling up your boat of 5,000 people to the dock of a town, I'd be curious to know how democratic of a decision that is. On a related note, I highly recommend the book "Do Travel Writers Go To Hell", written by a Lonely Planet author who reflects on the conundrum of publishing the best beaches and bars he finds, knowing they will be overrun with tourists as soon as the book is out. (I don't recall if the book is nonfiction)
    - codefreeordie 4y ago
      At the risk of drawing too much excitement to this thread: if it is unacceptable and inherently racist to be upset at millions of people per year coming across your border uninvited to stay permanently, why is it super cool and totally fine to flip out about hundreds of thousands of people (who already file identity paperwork and pay travel taxes) who just want to visit for a few hours and buy some overpriced tchotchkes, coffee, and gelatos? It does seem to me that if the first is an inalienable human right, then surely the second must also be.
      - jazzyjackson 4y ago
        I agree this is an apt comparison, very much wanting to keep some nebulous region to yourself, free of the "outsiders" Even happens with internet forums, as soon as your growth curve hits "eternal september" there's no going back to that small town feel
      - rtpg 4y ago
        Perhaps the idea of somebody coming to a place, setting up shop, and participating in a local community feels pretty inherently good, while somebody showing up, buying a coffee, then bouncing does not feel so good. I do think that tourist areas are ultimately not “owned” by the locals, but there is a truth to tourism economies sucking the oxygen out of building a more sustainable economy that would benefit people more. A hotel is maybe good for some jobs, but maybe some other commerces or industries would actually make a place less dependent on the whims of tourists. Externalities aren’t fungible of course (how much litter is having one more hotel job worth). Places like Paris tend to work well because there’s huge amount of infrastructure built out for large population fluctuations like trains, and ultimately it ends up benefiting people well. Compare that to many island tourist destination where you basically have tourist-only infrastructure.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
prawn 4y ago
There are costs for tourist visas in some countries. There are costs/permits for particular areas (national parks, public buildings, etc). Maybe it feels odd just because there's not much precedent for this particular tier. The price and details seem pretty reasonable to me. Fundraising to improve the place and reduce burdens on residents dealing with but not profiting from tourism seems smart. I visited Venice almost 20 years ago, and it was fairly miserable while the daytrippers were there tromping over bridges, but improved dramatically in the evenings and early mornings. I was a backpacker on the road for a year with a constrained budget, but would've been fine with paying $10 had we not stayed overnight. Flat-out limiting numbers would be a greater restraint, I think. There are a number of places (many in the USA) where visitation is via limited permit - things like climbing Half Dome or visiting The Wave, now climbing Angel's Landing. Even driving through the main roads of Glacier NP or Yosemite NP.
- hammock 4y ago
  >There are costs for tourist visas in some countries Only in third world countries, or for third world visitors. Freedom of movement between countries and cities is a cornerstone of modern civilization
  - prawn 4y ago
    Unless I'm reading the wrong site, it looks like the visa application fee for someone eligible for the US visa-waiver and ESTA looks to be $14. Not sure if this was an intentional US-3W joke though. Non-VWP looks like Tourism B-2 and $160? I wouldn't have guessed China and India are third-world. From a quick search, both seem to have visa costs. Thailand, Turkey, also. Someone from China visiting the UK seems to cop UKP100 for a Standard Visitor visa. I'm pretty sure I've paid visa charges for various not-overly-third-world countries in the past.
    - hammock 4y ago
      You got me on Thailand but the rest of the countries you mention are not first world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model Perhaps I meant to say “non first world” rather than third world, as well

speeder 4y ago

The goal is probably discourage short term visitors. In the many, MAAAAANY past HN topics about this, complaints about them were constant. Basically Cruise Ships barge in (sometimes literally, hitting other boats or even buildings), then people climb out, make a mess, annoy everyone (including the tourists that are on hotels), then leave again, since they are sleeping on the ship anyway. Lots of stories here on HN of how the day tourists often don't even spend any money, they probably paid to eat on the cruise ship, so they just climb out, take photos, roam around, pollute, then go eat and sleep back on the ship and don't buy anything.

WillPostForFood 4y ago
Seems like cruise ships would be a good target for additional taxes.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  They do, a megaship pays about $100k per day to dock, less to anchor nearby.
Spinosaurus 4y ago
Why not simply prohibit cruise ships in the nearby port? That seems like a far, far easier solution if that is in fact the root cause of the problem.
- ziofill 4y ago
  It’s been advocated for many years, but the maritime transportation industry is very powerful in Italy.
- MattGaiser 4y ago
  Presumably you want to discourage people who won’t spend as much. Cruises are costly.
- iav 4y ago
  Cruise ship arrivals were only 7% of Venice visitors in 2018. They have already been diverted to a nearby industrial port since reopening after the pandemic
bogota 4y ago
Same thing happens all over. Cruise ships and the people on them make otherwise enjoyable places absolutely terrible. After my first experience with it it’s something I check now and I won’t go to any place that cruise ships frequent.
codefreeordie 4y ago
So much for the freedom of movement, I guess. Darn those people-who-arent-me wanting to go to the cool places I want to go to. They should be kicked out so that people like me can enjoy the places without all that riff-raff running amok
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  i mostly agree with your tack here, but there's something to be said for pulling up your boat of 5,000 people to the dock of a town, I'd be curious to know how democratic of a decision that is. On a related note, I highly recommend the book "Do Travel Writers Go To Hell", written by a Lonely Planet author who reflects on the conundrum of publishing the best beaches and bars he finds, knowing they will be overrun with tourists as soon as the book is out. (I don't recall if the book is nonfiction)
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    At the risk of drawing too much excitement to this thread: if it is unacceptable and inherently racist to be upset at millions of people per year coming across your border uninvited to stay permanently, why is it super cool and totally fine to flip out about hundreds of thousands of people (who already file identity paperwork and pay travel taxes) who just want to visit for a few hours and buy some overpriced tchotchkes, coffee, and gelatos? It does seem to me that if the first is an inalienable human right, then surely the second must also be.
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      I agree this is an apt comparison, very much wanting to keep some nebulous region to yourself, free of the "outsiders" Even happens with internet forums, as soon as your growth curve hits "eternal september" there's no going back to that small town feel
    - rtpg 4y ago
      Perhaps the idea of somebody coming to a place, setting up shop, and participating in a local community feels pretty inherently good, while somebody showing up, buying a coffee, then bouncing does not feel so good. I do think that tourist areas are ultimately not “owned” by the locals, but there is a truth to tourism economies sucking the oxygen out of building a more sustainable economy that would benefit people more. A hotel is maybe good for some jobs, but maybe some other commerces or industries would actually make a place less dependent on the whims of tourists. Externalities aren’t fungible of course (how much litter is having one more hotel job worth). Places like Paris tend to work well because there’s huge amount of infrastructure built out for large population fluctuations like trains, and ultimately it ends up benefiting people well. Compare that to many island tourist destination where you basically have tourist-only infrastructure.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

prawn 4y ago

There are costs for tourist visas in some countries. There are costs/permits for particular areas (national parks, public buildings, etc). Maybe it feels odd just because there's not much precedent for this particular tier. The price and details seem pretty reasonable to me. Fundraising to improve the place and reduce burdens on residents dealing with but not profiting from tourism seems smart. I visited Venice almost 20 years ago, and it was fairly miserable while the daytrippers were there tromping over bridges, but improved dramatically in the evenings and early mornings. I was a backpacker on the road for a year with a constrained budget, but would've been fine with paying $10 had we not stayed overnight. Flat-out limiting numbers would be a greater restraint, I think. There are a number of places (many in the USA) where visitation is via limited permit - things like climbing Half Dome or visiting The Wave, now climbing Angel's Landing. Even driving through the main roads of Glacier NP or Yosemite NP.

hammock 4y ago
>There are costs for tourist visas in some countries Only in third world countries, or for third world visitors. Freedom of movement between countries and cities is a cornerstone of modern civilization
- prawn 4y ago
  Unless I'm reading the wrong site, it looks like the visa application fee for someone eligible for the US visa-waiver and ESTA looks to be $14. Not sure if this was an intentional US-3W joke though. Non-VWP looks like Tourism B-2 and $160? I wouldn't have guessed China and India are third-world. From a quick search, both seem to have visa costs. Thailand, Turkey, also. Someone from China visiting the UK seems to cop UKP100 for a Standard Visitor visa. I'm pretty sure I've paid visa charges for various not-overly-third-world countries in the past.
  - hammock 4y ago
    You got me on Thailand but the rest of the countries you mention are not first world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model Perhaps I meant to say “non first world” rather than third world, as well