The rollout of the tourist “contribution” came after Venice narrowly escaped being placed on the UNESCO danger list earlier this year because of the threat that overtourism was having on its delicate ecosystem
Bit dramatic of you to call a $5.45 fee hostile. Venice is legitimately overcrowded during tourist season and has a lot of problems to deal with to even literally stay above water right now. I’m sure they won’t miss you.
If a family plans a trip that involves an international flight, accommodation and preparation, a €6 is not going to change a thing. This seems more like an easy, state-sponsored money grab than a legitimate effort to better manage over-tourism.
You can get around Europe surprisingly cheap. This tax is made so that the people you mention, who pay for hotels and services in the town are not discouraged, but the ones who just walk through spending nothing will avoid the place.
The fee will be payed only by people who stay in the city just for the day. The idea is to discourage this kind of “fast tourism” in favour of people who instead spend more days in the city (then of course, the actual efficacy of this method for reducing overcrowding is to be seen)
I mean how you describe your situation sounds like exactly what this tax is meaning to deal with. A big group of people (10 by your numbers?) who only come for the day to use the city like a free open air museum and maybe buy a meal there and then leave having added very little to the economy to the extent that you think €60 is too much to pay for your day there being a part of the extreme congestion the city has.
So if you’re not going to come anymore this seems like mission accomplished.
Amsterdam has the same problem with cruise ship tourists. They pile into the city and spend little money and create a nuisance for everyone living here. I think both cities would be much better off without day trip tourists.
Say you’ve never been to Venice without saying you’ve never been to Venice.
It’s basically always overcrowded with tourists, it’s understandable that they would do something about it. All that traffic takes a toll on the streets that were already sinking even without said traffic. A 6€ fee to maintain them better is hardly a racket.
deleted by creator
Bit dramatic of you to call a $5.45 fee hostile. Venice is legitimately overcrowded during tourist season and has a lot of problems to deal with to even literally stay above water right now. I’m sure they won’t miss you.
If a family plans a trip that involves an international flight, accommodation and preparation, a €6 is not going to change a thing. This seems more like an easy, state-sponsored money grab than a legitimate effort to better manage over-tourism.
You can get around Europe surprisingly cheap. This tax is made so that the people you mention, who pay for hotels and services in the town are not discouraged, but the ones who just walk through spending nothing will avoid the place.
The fee will be payed only by people who stay in the city just for the day. The idea is to discourage this kind of “fast tourism” in favour of people who instead spend more days in the city (then of course, the actual efficacy of this method for reducing overcrowding is to be seen)
It’s a start though
deleted by creator
I mean how you describe your situation sounds like exactly what this tax is meaning to deal with. A big group of people (10 by your numbers?) who only come for the day to use the city like a free open air museum and maybe buy a meal there and then leave having added very little to the economy to the extent that you think €60 is too much to pay for your day there being a part of the extreme congestion the city has.
So if you’re not going to come anymore this seems like mission accomplished.
Amsterdam has the same problem with cruise ship tourists. They pile into the city and spend little money and create a nuisance for everyone living here. I think both cities would be much better off without day trip tourists.
No one likes tourists, what are you on about?
Say you’ve never been to Venice without saying you’ve never been to Venice.
It’s basically always overcrowded with tourists, it’s understandable that they would do something about it. All that traffic takes a toll on the streets that were already sinking even without said traffic. A 6€ fee to maintain them better is hardly a racket.