[Spinosaurus]

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]

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]

Seems like cruise ships would be a good target for additional taxes.

[mixmastamyk]

They do, a megaship pays about $100k per day to dock, less to anchor nearby.

[bogota]

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]

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]

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]

If the travel writer actually feels this way, they are hopelessly and irredeemably elitist.

[jazzyjackson]

elitist because he found a local dive bar on a Brazillian beach with good vibes, that he knows will not be the same once he directs a flow of Americans toward it?

It's about knowing the consequences - not just keeping the bar a secret for his own benefit, but knowing he's going to ruin the experience for everyone else who liked the peace and quiet (of course, the owners of the bar are likely to be grateful for the uptick in business)

[codefreeordie]

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.

[rtpg]

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.

[jazzyjackson]

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

[Spinosaurus]

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.

[iav]

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

[ziofill]

It’s been advocated for many years, but the maritime transportation industry is very powerful in Italy.

[MattGaiser]

Presumably you want to discourage people who won’t spend as much. Cruises are costly.

[prawn]

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.

[Spinosaurus]

> Fundraising to improve the place and reduce burdens on residents dealing with but not profiting from tourism seems smart.

That's absolutely fine, but I feel like a reservation/ticketing system such as the one proposed is not the best solution. Again, a tourism tax across the city might achieve the same effect without such a system.

In my opinion, the cost (within reason) is absolutely irrelevant. Raising money for the city and locals is a great effort and I applaud it. It is simply the requirement of yet another "hoop to jump through" that bothers me. After years of a pandemic with legally questionable restrictions and requirements throughout daily life, I simply don't want more "hoops to jump through".

[FalconSensei]

You can also visit any other tourist destination you want, without that extra hoop, including places in Italy

[hammock]

>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]

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]

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

Perhaps I meant to say “non first world” rather than third world, as well

[prawn]

I'm Australian. To visit the USA as a tourist, it's US$160 for a Tourism B-2 visa or US$21 for the ESTA under VWP. I might be missing another option as a tourist, but the ESTA is certainly the encouraged option and one I've used a couple of times before.

[bogantech]

Foreigners will soon be required to apply for an ETIAS to visit Europe where previously I didn't need a visa to visit from Australia.

Is the EU third world too?

[vinay427]

I find it somewhat concerning that charging tourist visa fees for third-world visitors is listed as an exception, as if the fees and often more laborious interviews and documentation that the majority of people in the world face doesn’t negate the so-called freedom of movement in virtually every western country.

[throw-ru-938]

> Only in third world countries, or for third world visitors.

Why did you feel you actually had to say this?