this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
134 points (98.6% liked)

World News

38979 readers
3188 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 41 points 6 months ago (3 children)

If that's all the money the city needs to clean up after tourists I think it's extremely reasonable. There are a lot of cities that already impose hotel taxes that are significantly higher than this amount.

There's been a big pushback by residents about the commoditization of their city but, to be honest, Venice itself is a tourist attraction and can benefit the regional economy a lot better if that reality is accepted. If the city would like to declare an isolationist policy and bar tourists completely it's certainly an option - but the infrastructure required to preserve it through climate change is far beyond the means of the local economy.

It's not particularly fair but if we want the city to continue existing it needs to pay for a lot of infrastructure to combat rising sea-level and, especially, increased variability due to storms.

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Think it's mainly about keeping it liveable now. Searise is a lost case anyhow for a place like Venice, 2100 or 2200 what's the difference, It'll be lost beneath the waves or hidden behind such a tall permanent seawall that the bay basically dies (and starts smelling, sanding etc). No-one is discussing really long term, at all concerning cc sealevels. Most coastal areas are just an illusion to keep dry long term (100+ years from now), there's no turning back damages done. Planning with optimistic 2100 sealevels is really short term compared to the scale of the issue.

[–] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

2100 Venice going to be a red-hot tourist destination for scuba divers.

[–] Bahalex@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

The push back from the residents is a bit of knee jerk reaction, it’s them saying “treat our city like an amusement park, fine, pay like you’re visiting an amusement park”.

A complex issue boiled down to one phrase.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Cities like this should do (and likely have) an ecological and infrastructure impact study on how much tourism affects the city, where, and to what extent per how many tourists. It could then come up with reasonable costs for maintaining the city, and even limits for how many tourists to allow per year, if necessary.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I went to Venice in the 80s and it was trashed. The canals were filled with garbage. Tourists treated it like their personal property.

I can't even imagine what it must be like now.

[–] WillySpreadum@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

Having visited in 2019, it was incredibly clean. They charged just a standard transient occupancy tax of I wanna say a few euros a day. But that’s multiplied by 24 million annual visitors staying for multiple nights each. I need to read this article when I get home and see what the new funds are earmarked for, because I remember being happy with everything from cleanliness to safety to transit while I was there.

[–] vodkasolution@feddit.it 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Been there last year: a bit too many rules but the city is very clean

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

The rules are probably necessary considering how it was back then.

[–] sandman@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago

It just makes sense.

Charge people what they're willing to pay.