[Ekaros]

Cruise ship tourism isn't necessarily type of tourism you want to encourage. Specially if you are already popular and well enough connected location for all strata.

The tourist arriving with ships already have paid for their board and food. So they are less likely to spend money in the city. And then it is possibly they go on tours run by the ship thus most money not going to locals.

In the end many cities in Europe especially don't need this type of tourism. They have enough organic self-grown much more profitable tourism already. Does not mean there isn't some places where local economy depends on it. And even then cruise companies are trying to capture also the gains there.

[yreg]

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.

[rightbyte]

The 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]

Government can always add levies if it wants.

[cguess]

Because 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]

There 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.

[EA-3167]

In addition cruises are often marketed to people looking to save money, so you have even less of a chance of them spending in a meaningful way, even beyond the rationale you've already laid out.

[throw__away7391]

...while simultaneously driving out the type of visitor they do want to attract.