[DoubleFree]

A government's primary purpose is to act on behalf of its constituents, and if these daytrippers are substantially detrimental to Amsterdam's livability, they should be discouraged from going there.

Or, to put it in more financial terms, the cost of compensating for the negative effects of these tourists might be much higher than the tax revenue they bring in.

[fasthands9]

I think the counter is that in almost every town locals hate tourists, but an average citizen hasn't thought through the consequences of not having the tax base support them.

As someone who currently lives in NYC it would be great for me if tourists stopped coming to the city and magically the level of restaurants, sanitation, and public transit didnt change at all.

[qwytw]

Amsterdam's old town is tiny if you compare it to NYC, if you have limited capacity it's also rational to prioritize tourists who are likely to spend more per capita (I'm not sure if this will necessarily be the long-term outcome of the band though).

[cguess]

I live in NYC too, but imagine if all of Manhattan was midtown. That's basically Amsterdam these days. The suburbs are fine, but it's a nightmare in the city center. Imagine Times Square but like 6x the size.

[elif]

You can't compare Amsterdam tourists with "every town" tourists. Sorry that you have never visited but it is quite apparent if you have.

[Retric]

Sure, but cruse ship tourists bring in vastly less money so it’s not a constant benefit from a given level of harm.

[varjag]

The Dutch are quite pragmatic and they had years to think about this.