[mft_]

The original disagreement was (to simplify) around whether locals' objections to tourists was due to economics (housing becoming more expensive), or other possible factors (including xenophobia).

So we seem to have agreed that, yes, in areas where there's a significant influx of tourists (whether short or long-term), there are likely to be sigificant economic factors that might explain the locals' antipathy?

[lurk2]

> So we seem to have agreed that, yes, in areas where there's a significant influx of tourists (whether short or long-term), there are likely to be sigificant economic factors that might explain the locals' antipathy?

Are you seeing these demonstrations in the resort towns or in the cities under the 3% threshold?

[mft_]

I think you're trying to shift the goalposts, or you're just not seeing that we're stuck in circular logic.

----

You originally said there isn't an economic basis to locals' antipathy to outsiders.

I provided evidence to show that an economic basis is plausible.

You then use that evidence, and define any examples where it's happening as a 'resort town', and then require evidence that it's also happening in places you wouldn't define as a 'resort town'.

I can't do that, because you excluded the places I can provide positive evidence for, by defining them as resort towns.

----

My basic point remains: there are plenty of places where an influx of short- or long-term tourists causes a meaningful economic shift in the cost of housing (especially) which therefore makes it logical (and not just xenophobic) that the locals might resent the tourists.