How cities can fix tourism hell(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
How cities can fix tourism hell
https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/17/how-cities-can-fix-tourism-hell/
112 comments
Yeah, this is roughly where my thoughts lie. When my partner and I were travelling around Europe, many of the popular cities charged a bed tax — usually only a euro or two a night, so not enough to put us off in anyway, but in aggregate allowing the cities to invest in facilities that could support the tourist influx.
Back home, there’s been debate about doing this too. I hope the pro-tax side wins. Our country is suffering under the annual tourist load, and we need more money in the pot to support it — at the basic end of the spectrum, there are lots of popular places that desperately need toilets and rubbish facilities for the tourists (and the locals) to use. Private industry cannot fill that gap (or, so far, has not) — and while the public are profiting from the visitors, more of that profit needs to be diverted to public coffers to enable the government to fix the problem. A bed tax is a great tool for helping that to happen.
Back home, there’s been debate about doing this too. I hope the pro-tax side wins. Our country is suffering under the annual tourist load, and we need more money in the pot to support it — at the basic end of the spectrum, there are lots of popular places that desperately need toilets and rubbish facilities for the tourists (and the locals) to use. Private industry cannot fill that gap (or, so far, has not) — and while the public are profiting from the visitors, more of that profit needs to be diverted to public coffers to enable the government to fix the problem. A bed tax is a great tool for helping that to happen.
"usually only a euro or two a night, so not enough to put us off in anyway, but in aggregate allowing the cities to invest in facilities that could support the tourist influx."
This is exactly the right strategy! And the "infrastructure to support more tourists" is exactly what this article lays out.
This is exactly the right strategy! And the "infrastructure to support more tourists" is exactly what this article lays out.
but if it's not enough to put them off, the tax doesn't work
The idea isn't to put them off, that seems like a mindlessly cynical goal. Build the infrastructure to support the larger numbers. If the infrastructure needs to discriminate against tourists, that's fine too (e.g. added trains for tourists vs. commuters), new digital methods tool can allow for this.
I believe in many places the problem is that locals don’t want to live in a city built for tourists.
Huge number of visitors for example affect the local stores and services. Places catering for locals getting replaced by tourist attractions.
Huge number of visitors for example affect the local stores and services. Places catering for locals getting replaced by tourist attractions.
No, the idea is to put them off. It's basically impossible to "build infrastructure" to support them, whatever that means. There is no more room for trains or even sidewalks, so it would mean totally changing the cities into something else.
Yes. Cities change. All the time. Why is this suddenly a problem?
New train/subway lines are built (even in SF! [1]), sidewalks are widened (car lanes can be collapsed). None of this is new, in fact, this kind of growth and change has been the standard in the last 100 years of urban development. This doesn't stop now.
[1]: https://sf.curbed.com/2018/11/15/18096775/bart-second-crossi...
[1]: https://sf.curbed.com/2018/11/15/18096775/bart-second-crossi...
It's obvious why this is a problem. Just look at Venice - when a city is mostly filled with tourists it becomes like a theme park. Are you serious about building subways and widening sidewalks there?
I suppose you'll say everybody should just move out if they don't like it, but most people consider it the better option to plan how their cities evolve.
I suppose you'll say everybody should just move out if they don't like it, but most people consider it the better option to plan how their cities evolve.
Venice is an extreme case, I agree. That's one of the places that we visited that had the small kind of bed tax I'm thinking of; unfortunately that probably isn't fixing their problems. Many of their tourists stay in cruise ships (which have to have the lagoon dredged to support them; sinking Venice itself...); a bed tax doesn't target them, and they're completely and utterly overwhelmed regardless. It was a fascinating and deeply depressing place to visit.
A bed tax in general, applicable to both hotels and AirBNB, I suspect probably deals better with the other end of the spectrum. At the end of the spectrum I'm thinking about (and probably my co-poster), extra funding is necessary for the municipalities that can sustain further growth of their tourism industry, but are struggling to keep up with demand. New Zealand falls somewhere in here; we have significant problems with tourists literally shitting on walking trails because the previous Government dropped all its tourist budget on global advertising, and didn't anticipate the sheer success they'd have; we therefore lack basic amenities like toilets in many popular tourist spots (or -- if there are toilets -- they're long drops maintained by the Department of Conservation, which most tourists won't use). We can do better with a little extra cash; I believe the new Government is currently investigating a border tax, but a bed tax would help the regions too. Other major metropolises popular with tourists like Paris, Rome, Barcelona etc. could use the extra cash in broadly similar ways; supporting the growth of transit systems and developing infrastructure that supports and promotes distributing the tourist load to other attractions.
I suspect that if you were to put in a large bed tax with the explicit goal of discouraging visitors in places like Venice... it might not work? The rich would put up with it and go anyway. You'd probably cut out many of the poorer visitors, but I doubt you'd see a big net drop unless the tax approached a point that it killed the tourism industry altogether, and sunk the local economy. I suspect that for somewhere like Venice, there needs to be stronger intervention; the category of idea I'm thinking of is a lottery system like the US parks or something.
A bed tax in general, applicable to both hotels and AirBNB, I suspect probably deals better with the other end of the spectrum. At the end of the spectrum I'm thinking about (and probably my co-poster), extra funding is necessary for the municipalities that can sustain further growth of their tourism industry, but are struggling to keep up with demand. New Zealand falls somewhere in here; we have significant problems with tourists literally shitting on walking trails because the previous Government dropped all its tourist budget on global advertising, and didn't anticipate the sheer success they'd have; we therefore lack basic amenities like toilets in many popular tourist spots (or -- if there are toilets -- they're long drops maintained by the Department of Conservation, which most tourists won't use). We can do better with a little extra cash; I believe the new Government is currently investigating a border tax, but a bed tax would help the regions too. Other major metropolises popular with tourists like Paris, Rome, Barcelona etc. could use the extra cash in broadly similar ways; supporting the growth of transit systems and developing infrastructure that supports and promotes distributing the tourist load to other attractions.
I suspect that if you were to put in a large bed tax with the explicit goal of discouraging visitors in places like Venice... it might not work? The rich would put up with it and go anyway. You'd probably cut out many of the poorer visitors, but I doubt you'd see a big net drop unless the tax approached a point that it killed the tourism industry altogether, and sunk the local economy. I suspect that for somewhere like Venice, there needs to be stronger intervention; the category of idea I'm thinking of is a lottery system like the US parks or something.
Significant bed tax in Venice leads to people staying in Mestre or further afield and commuting in. From your post it sounds like cruise ships are the main problem. Why not increase the cost for them to dock?
A tourist tax doesn’t really increase the cost of staying somewhere - if I’m willing g to spend $200 on a hotel in Venice it doesn’t matter if it’s $190 for the hotel and $10 for the tax, or $100 each.
On the other hand if the hotel could get customers willing to pay $300, they would charge that anyway.
A tourist tax shifts the money away from the hotel owner to the local government to pay for the externalities the hotel owner doesn’t. By targeting tourists rather than beds it also means that people on a business trip pay less, helping diversify the economy.
The problem with charging a tourist tax is of course defining what a tourist is, ensuring that Airbnb hosts pass on the tax, and ensuring it’s leveed on day trippers
A tourist tax doesn’t really increase the cost of staying somewhere - if I’m willing g to spend $200 on a hotel in Venice it doesn’t matter if it’s $190 for the hotel and $10 for the tax, or $100 each.
On the other hand if the hotel could get customers willing to pay $300, they would charge that anyway.
A tourist tax shifts the money away from the hotel owner to the local government to pay for the externalities the hotel owner doesn’t. By targeting tourists rather than beds it also means that people on a business trip pay less, helping diversify the economy.
The problem with charging a tourist tax is of course defining what a tourist is, ensuring that Airbnb hosts pass on the tax, and ensuring it’s leveed on day trippers
Shouldn't a bed tax increases the price? Low margin hotels will be forced to shut down since the margin just is taxed and if they increase the price they will lose guests.
A bed tax is essentially cutting the demand.
You could make the bed tax season adjusted. The peak months are the main problem.
A bed tax is essentially cutting the demand.
You could make the bed tax season adjusted. The peak months are the main problem.
Put up a toll booth on the highway in? Doesn't London do something like this where it costs a ton to come into the city center?
>"The idea isn't to put them off, that seems like a mindlessly cynical goal. Build the infrastructure to support the larger numbers."
Except in many places there is no room to build that infrastructure to support larger numbers of tourists - Venice, NYC and Amsterdam being examples. Nor do many of the people living in places that are over-touristed want infrastructure built to support yet more tourists. "Putting them off" is exactly the point in the tax.
Except in many places there is no room to build that infrastructure to support larger numbers of tourists - Venice, NYC and Amsterdam being examples. Nor do many of the people living in places that are over-touristed want infrastructure built to support yet more tourists. "Putting them off" is exactly the point in the tax.
Where there are historic buildings or city towns there should be a limit to the number of tourists visiting - to help persevere the work (ie walls crumbling under pressure) or simply to make living around the area livable or getting to the area a decent experience.
The second reason should be reason enough. People don't want to live in a town overrun with tourists. All their stores and bars and such become touristy gimmick places, cause those can charge huge markup on stuff that tourists buy and make more money. Tourists drive the locals out (AirBnB is a fairly large factor in rent prices increasing in Ireland, for instance) and make it so only tourists are in town. It's horrible.
Check out Chicago or Montreal. The tourist tax is just massive.
Montreal looks to be only 3.5% extra, not exactly massive.
Their sales and goods/services taxes are high, which works out to close to 20% total tax on a room. Still not that crazy.
Source: https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g155032-i51-k6671607-H...
Their sales and goods/services taxes are high, which works out to close to 20% total tax on a room. Still not that crazy.
Source: https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g155032-i51-k6671607-H...
I think YUL has some of the highest airport fees for any major North American city. For example, there's an "Airport Improvement Fee" of 30 CAD (on every flight) https://www.aircanada.com/us/en/aco/home/legal/surcharges.ht... My sense is that this is just one of many fees that hit you when you fly into Montréal. I think the total fees are more like 60-90 USD on every flight.
(I'm not suggesting that high taxes are bad. I support aggressively high VAT taxes refunded to the poor and lower middle class.)
(I'm not suggesting that high taxes are bad. I support aggressively high VAT taxes refunded to the poor and lower middle class.)
All Canadian airports have high AIFs (Toronto's is $25 for instance), and they are charged to everyone not just tourists.
It's more to do with how airports are structured and managed in Canada versus other countries. It's a user-pay model rather than having them subsidized by the government. In fact many actually pay ground rent to the federal government.
It's more to do with how airports are structured and managed in Canada versus other countries. It's a user-pay model rather than having them subsidized by the government. In fact many actually pay ground rent to the federal government.
It's arguably not a model that has actually worked out very well for Canada. They push a significant portion of their air travelers over the US border for much cheaper flights.
And they wind up with fewer flights and worse route options to their own domestic airports as a result.
Ex: Burlington VT is about 40% Canadian, Plattsbugh + Niagara Falls NY are almost entirely Canadian traffic.
And they wind up with fewer flights and worse route options to their own domestic airports as a result.
Ex: Burlington VT is about 40% Canadian, Plattsbugh + Niagara Falls NY are almost entirely Canadian traffic.
Part of it is also restricting location. Every large city has a tourist quarter that becomes devoid of everyday services for residents in favor of trinket shops and expensive, mediocre restaurants (e.g. Times Square in NYC). By introducing AirBnBs everywhere you run the risk of turning residential quarters into these dead zones. In contrast, hotels are very easy to restrict using zoning.
The promise of Airbnb (I'm not a booster though) is that if you spread out the impact, you don't have to have any dead zones.
Except it doesn't work. People buy out apartments simply to AirBnB them, meaning one less local can live there. Others get driven out due to noise, and then yet another AirBnB company comes in an snatches them up. AirBnB is a huge issue that nobody seems willing to face, imo.
Bhutan provides an example of capping the tourists and charging a hefty visa fee for visitors. Tourism is not a human right and as such it's a luxury. It taxes all natural resources and exacerbates pollution (more disposable items and short lived items). Therefore, something akin to Bhutan could work for places which feel overwhelmed by tourists.
(not proposing all places instate this, but rather places where the footprint of overtourism is too much to bear)
(not proposing all places instate this, but rather places where the footprint of overtourism is too much to bear)
IIRC, Saudi Arabia does something similar with the Hajj, which they have to do because it's one of the largest annual human migrations.
An Arabian started a religion that mandates visiting Arabia. Now that's advertising!
In the USA I think the general populace is tax averse. Passing a new tax even one that could arguably be good for the local population or region, is a good way to get unelected, even in very liberal states.
Local governments are incredibly susceptible to this, but it very clearly plays out nationally as well. The idea that government can “do good” in the USA is very co troversial at best.
This is a great article about it, as a simple litmus
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/economy/slipping...
Local governments are incredibly susceptible to this, but it very clearly plays out nationally as well. The idea that government can “do good” in the USA is very co troversial at best.
This is a great article about it, as a simple litmus
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/economy/slipping...
This is why hotel taxes are popular. Voters don’t pay them.
Generally speaking, "obvious" and very simple solutions of that sort to any kind of social problem tend to come with a raft load of unexpected and unintended consequences that can be difficult to prove and can be a net negative.
I'm keenly interested in better understanding the problem space. I am very leery of such "obvious" answers.
I'm keenly interested in better understanding the problem space. I am very leery of such "obvious" answers.
> At risk of being labeled a "neoliberal idealist," why isn't the answer here simply taxing tourists more?
Because that's really tricky to do without reducing the town to just tourism. Some people forget that in tourist towns there are also people who live, who have families and friends and some of their activities look very much like tourism.
Sure, you can try to do all kinds of things to work around this but ultimately the solution of taxing tourists does not work well in practice.
Because that's really tricky to do without reducing the town to just tourism. Some people forget that in tourist towns there are also people who live, who have families and friends and some of their activities look very much like tourism.
Sure, you can try to do all kinds of things to work around this but ultimately the solution of taxing tourists does not work well in practice.
Quite the opposite. If the worry is "too much tourists" well, just raise the tax until you have the desire amount of tourists! (and a lot more money in the coffers).
What am I missing here?
As an example, the country of Bhutan has zero desire for tourists, but instead of banning them they just charge a $250USD tax per day.
What am I missing here?
As an example, the country of Bhutan has zero desire for tourists, but instead of banning them they just charge a $250USD tax per day.
>but instead of banning them they just charge a $250USD tax per day.
Hard to call that a tax when it includes lodging, a personal guide, a driver with car, food, and entrance fees to the things you go see. All you have to cover while there is tips and alcohol.
Hard to call that a tax when it includes lodging, a personal guide, a driver with car, food, and entrance fees to the things you go see. All you have to cover while there is tips and alcohol.
> ultimately the solution of taxing tourists does not work well in practice.
Got any examples? Many cities in the world have tourism taxes, charged as a per-night fee added to hotel bills. Miami has a beach fee for tourists. Somehow, despite no income tax, Miami manages to stay solvent.
Got any examples? Many cities in the world have tourism taxes, charged as a per-night fee added to hotel bills. Miami has a beach fee for tourists. Somehow, despite no income tax, Miami manages to stay solvent.
Just a small correction. Miami has a hotel bed tax, not a beach fee. I have friends and family that visit and stay with us regularly. They have never been charged to stay with me nor go to the beach. Compared to the rest of the tourist traps down here the beach is one of the best values.
As for the cities of Miami and Miami Beach being solvent, LOL. Depends on who you ask. There is never enough money for the things we need (public transport, housing, education) yet plenty of money for things we never asked for (stadiums, Amazon HQ2).
As for the cities of Miami and Miami Beach being solvent, LOL. Depends on who you ask. There is never enough money for the things we need (public transport, housing, education) yet plenty of money for things we never asked for (stadiums, Amazon HQ2).
If you are staying at a hotel and want to use its beach chair, you are charged a usage tax. It's somewhere around $10.
Which I think is fair. The hotels have basically staked out a part of the public beach to put their chairs and umbrellas on, indefinitely. This takes space away from the public use.
I agree. The subject is tourism taxes, which the original parent poster claimed did not work. I asked for evidence and provided a direct counterexample, with no avail.
> Many cities in the world have tourism taxes, charged as a per-night fee added to hotel bills.
How do they differentiate between business travelers and tourists or do they just pass on the fees to both?
How do they differentiate between business travelers and tourists or do they just pass on the fees to both?
I don't think Miami is worried about becoming reduced to just tourism (aren't they already?), so it's not really a counterexample to GP's point.
Ed: explicitness
Ed: explicitness
Tourism is the primary component of Miami's economy, though it is hardly the only sector. International trade and banking together occupy a larger proportion of Miami's economy.
http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-South/Miami-Economy.h...
http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-South/Miami-Economy.h...
I guess it’s up to the city to decide whether it wants to:
A) use tax and revenues from tourists to progressively change it self to accommodate more and more tourists.
B) raise taxes so much that only cashed up tourists can afford to visit.
C) preserve the city as it is, and install some form of tourist lottery to avoid only cashed up tourist from visiting.
Very high bed tax can make "unofficial tourist accommodation" more competitive compared to official hotels and hostels. Even though regulation tries to prohibit that, tracking down the providers can be difficult.
How would you differentiate a local vs. a tourist?
Edit: is that even legal?
Edit: is that even legal?
[deleted]
In the US cities use things like hotel tax to target areas skewed towards tourist spending.
It's typically a tax on accommodation, rather than anything else.
That's what I thought. Unfortunately that also affects locals, which diminishes the benefit.
Locals who stay at hotels? Usually these taxes are only on short term accommodations like hotels and Airbnb
They're also usually limited by duration. So it'll be x euro a night for the first 7 nights, with a max of Y per stay
[deleted]
its not possible to do that in a viable way mainly because in many places tourists come from richer countries. An exorbitatly high deterrent-tax would paralyze the local market.
What if someone local wants to use Airbnb, but there is a bed tax? What if you want to visit family in next town that happens to be touristy or what if you have a work placement?
How do you distinguish tourists from non tourists?
Gross. Gross gross gross.
Tourists already get taxed. Hotel taxes are huge. It sucks. Traveling for conferences to meet new people and learn new things is soooo expensive and tourist taxes are a big part of why.
Tourist taxes are how you destroy diversity and trap people into the tiny bubble in which they were born. We should be striving for the opposite.
Tourists already get taxed. Hotel taxes are huge. It sucks. Traveling for conferences to meet new people and learn new things is soooo expensive and tourist taxes are a big part of why.
Tourist taxes are how you destroy diversity and trap people into the tiny bubble in which they were born. We should be striving for the opposite.
What city has a high tourist tax that’s even 30% of the total cost of a typical hotel. I just checked in Rome. I can get a room for €88 for two, €8, or 9%, of which is the city tax.
A good solution here seems to be - don't organise conferences in places which are full of tourists already. You want to meet new people and learn? Great - book a country hotel and transport from the airport, or maybe a place in some town with reasonable plane connections. You want to also see the city? You're a tourist.
I could not possibly disagree more.
Conferences are almost always a split of local and non-local attendees. Forcing conferences to be exclusively non-local attendees makes zero sense. It would be even more expensive, in absolute dollars and environmental cost, to have everyone travel to the middle of Nebraska.
I know it's not your intent, but your stance here reeks of elistism, xenophobia, and othering. Extrapolating your worldview I don't know why a country hotel would, or even should, be accommodating.
> don't organise conferences in places which are full of tourists already.
This is absurd. Conferences are about people. Places with a lot of people will naturally have those people come together for events. Things that make a place attractive to live can also make it an attractive place to visit.
Travel is so expensive it's almost crazy NOT to make the most out of your trip. Adding a day or two of tourism to a multi-day work or education trip is more than reasonable.
Conferences are almost always a split of local and non-local attendees. Forcing conferences to be exclusively non-local attendees makes zero sense. It would be even more expensive, in absolute dollars and environmental cost, to have everyone travel to the middle of Nebraska.
I know it's not your intent, but your stance here reeks of elistism, xenophobia, and othering. Extrapolating your worldview I don't know why a country hotel would, or even should, be accommodating.
> don't organise conferences in places which are full of tourists already.
This is absurd. Conferences are about people. Places with a lot of people will naturally have those people come together for events. Things that make a place attractive to live can also make it an attractive place to visit.
Travel is so expensive it's almost crazy NOT to make the most out of your trip. Adding a day or two of tourism to a multi-day work or education trip is more than reasonable.
It's funny, because I've actually been contemplating the total costs of having conferences in areas outside the SF bay, and it's probably net cheaper to have people fly to the middle of nowhere AND rent a hotel PLUS conference space, than it is to simply rent the conference space in SF.
Cost of living has grown so large that it's almost cheaper to fly into SFO every day from a regional airport instead of renting a hotel room.
Cost of living has grown so large that it's almost cheaper to fly into SFO every day from a regional airport instead of renting a hotel room.
It's not a recipe for all conferences and it will not work for all of them. It's a response to a specific issue - conferences in tourist cities are expensive. Really large conferences are almost entirely non-local anyway.
If you want to do work+fun trip, then a tourist destination could be great - but you have to be prepared to pay for it. (Or go to a nearby tourist place) If you want conferences for locals, they will always happen anyway.
The rest of your accusations don't make sense to me. How can something for mostly non-locals be xenophobic? How is an expensive conference in a big city less elitist (who can afford to live there?) than one outside of it?
If you want to do work+fun trip, then a tourist destination could be great - but you have to be prepared to pay for it. (Or go to a nearby tourist place) If you want conferences for locals, they will always happen anyway.
The rest of your accusations don't make sense to me. How can something for mostly non-locals be xenophobic? How is an expensive conference in a big city less elitist (who can afford to live there?) than one outside of it?
> Travel is so expensive it's almost crazy NOT to make the most out of your trip.
And you’re worried about an extra $5 a night to pay for tourist infrastructure?
And you’re worried about an extra $5 a night to pay for tourist infrastructure?
Who is avoiding travel because of tourist taxes? The relative cost of pre-tax airfare, lodging, etc. is exceptionally high relative to the typical hotel tax, for example. When did you last decide not to attend a conference because the destination’s tourist taxes were prohibitively high?
Who is avoiding travel because of costs? Almost everyone.
How much would a trip's cost be reduced with the elimination of tourist taxes? Totally depends. It's not the biggest cost. But it ain't zero either. They call it nickel-and-dime for a reason.
How much would a trip's cost be reduced with the elimination of tourist taxes? Totally depends. It's not the biggest cost. But it ain't zero either. They call it nickel-and-dime for a reason.
> Who is avoiding travel because of costs? Almost everyone
This is patently untrue. NYC had just shy of 63million visitors in 2017, and is one of the most expensive places on Earth.
Edinburgh (where I live) has about 480,000 people, and we get about 2 million visitors in the month of August. Accommodation is full, and prices are 2 or 3 times what they normally are for the entire month, and yet the city is full. A tourist tax of 1.50 a night is not going to deter anyone from visiting Edinburgh when the bus from the airport is 5 times that, or a night in a hotel is 20 times that.
This is patently untrue. NYC had just shy of 63million visitors in 2017, and is one of the most expensive places on Earth.
Edinburgh (where I live) has about 480,000 people, and we get about 2 million visitors in the month of August. Accommodation is full, and prices are 2 or 3 times what they normally are for the entire month, and yet the city is full. A tourist tax of 1.50 a night is not going to deter anyone from visiting Edinburgh when the bus from the airport is 5 times that, or a night in a hotel is 20 times that.
I very clearly did not ask who avoids travel because of total costs.
The question is in what case does somebody avoid booking a trip that they otherwise would’ve taken because they just can’t stomach the tourist taxes once they’re already paying hundreds for flights and lodging?
The question is in what case does somebody avoid booking a trip that they otherwise would’ve taken because they just can’t stomach the tourist taxes once they’re already paying hundreds for flights and lodging?
The question is in what case does somebody avoid booking a trip that they otherwise would’ve taken because they just can’t stomach the tourist taxes once they’re already paying hundreds for flights and lodging?
Marginal customers always exist. If you raise prices by a small amount, most customers will ignore it, but a small percentage won't. That's why the thing you bought for $X didn't cost $(X*1.01) instead.
Marginal customers always exist. If you raise prices by a small amount, most customers will ignore it, but a small percentage won't. That's why the thing you bought for $X didn't cost $(X*1.01) instead.
Most people don't even know how much they're paying in tourist taxes. I certainly don't. It's a hard-to-see line item on lodging, attractions, event space, etc.
What's the total cost? I don't know. Probably more than 1 percent and less than 5? How many more people would travel if costs were reduced by 5 percent? More than zero, less than a lot.
I was responding to a post arguing for MORE tourist taxes. I think we should we have less.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/business/07taxes.html
What's the total cost? I don't know. Probably more than 1 percent and less than 5? How many more people would travel if costs were reduced by 5 percent? More than zero, less than a lot.
I was responding to a post arguing for MORE tourist taxes. I think we should we have less.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/business/07taxes.html
Right, people hardly even consider tourist taxes and they’re often not visible when you’re rate shopping. So help me understand this claim from your original post:
>Tourist taxes are how you destroy diversity and trap people into the tiny bubble in which they were born
>Tourist taxes are how you destroy diversity and trap people into the tiny bubble in which they were born
Because tourist taxes are not visible, I assume the worst. This discourages me from travel. I may be wrong, but I just assume that the cost of a trip will be far higher than I'm told.
People know hotels are expensive. People know that bullshit taxes and fees get piled onto the advertised price when they try to checkout. People regularly scoff at the final price. Who among us hasn't? If someone closes their browser is doesn't matter if they do or not understand what the taxes or fees are for.
To reiterate, my original reply was someone asking for MORE tourist taxes. We can probably agree that travel is already expensive. We can debate about what percentage of that cost is from tourist taxes and how impactful that added cost is.
Making travel more expensive will obviously cause fewer people to travel. If you make travel sufficiently expensive then fewer and fewer people will travel and more and more people will stay in whatever place they happened to have been born. I can not give you the equation for what increase in price leads to what decrease in travel.
Growing up in rural Tennessee I remember conversations about travel. The number of high school students who had ever left the country was tiny. The number who had never left the south eastern US was decently large. The number who had never left their home state was alarming.
I'm fortunate to work in tech and be able to travel. If I want to see half my family I have to travel to them. They can't afford to travel to me. I have on multiple occasions paid for travel costs for family. Because they otherwise couldn't afford travel costs for events such as our grandfather's funeral. I find the idea that people who want to make travel even more expensive to be morally reprehensible.
To reiterate, my original reply was someone asking for MORE tourist taxes. We can probably agree that travel is already expensive. We can debate about what percentage of that cost is from tourist taxes and how impactful that added cost is.
Making travel more expensive will obviously cause fewer people to travel. If you make travel sufficiently expensive then fewer and fewer people will travel and more and more people will stay in whatever place they happened to have been born. I can not give you the equation for what increase in price leads to what decrease in travel.
Growing up in rural Tennessee I remember conversations about travel. The number of high school students who had ever left the country was tiny. The number who had never left the south eastern US was decently large. The number who had never left their home state was alarming.
I'm fortunate to work in tech and be able to travel. If I want to see half my family I have to travel to them. They can't afford to travel to me. I have on multiple occasions paid for travel costs for family. Because they otherwise couldn't afford travel costs for events such as our grandfather's funeral. I find the idea that people who want to make travel even more expensive to be morally reprehensible.
You are making all kinds of emotional arguments but not addressing the topic of the discussion.
This whole comment thread is about how cities can deal with the problems that come with an excess influx of tourists. These problems are real, no matter how romanticized the tourists' view of their trip was. In short, the destruction that massive tourism waves leave in their wake (to use an exaggerated analogy) is ultimately an externality to their action that needs to be paid by someone.
Yes, modulo everything, paying more for things sucks. Paying for externalities that you are not used to paying probably sucks even more. Tourism is not special in that regard. But the problems caused by tourism to the locals also suck, and if one of the fixes for them is increasing taxes, then you can't argue it away by saying, effectively, "no! I don't want to pay more".
This whole comment thread is about how cities can deal with the problems that come with an excess influx of tourists. These problems are real, no matter how romanticized the tourists' view of their trip was. In short, the destruction that massive tourism waves leave in their wake (to use an exaggerated analogy) is ultimately an externality to their action that needs to be paid by someone.
Yes, modulo everything, paying more for things sucks. Paying for externalities that you are not used to paying probably sucks even more. Tourism is not special in that regard. But the problems caused by tourism to the locals also suck, and if one of the fixes for them is increasing taxes, then you can't argue it away by saying, effectively, "no! I don't want to pay more".
I work in urban planning and have to say theres a lot of empty puff that comes under 'smart cities'. Sensors and IoT can help with some things but are more about efficiency or informing of issues rather than solving the issues themselves. The title here is quite ridiculous for the articles content
>more about efficiency or informing of issues rather than solving the issues themselves
Isn’t identifying issues a prerequisite for solving them?
Isn’t identifying issues a prerequisite for solving them?
How many urban issues are poorly identified?
Does increased surveillance do anything to improve the score?
At what direct and/or indirect costs?
Does increased surveillance do anything to improve the score?
At what direct and/or indirect costs?
Sure but many are reasonably well identified already. In a small town with a tourist event everyone knows which streets get full on which days already. And hotel managers will advise their customers what to do. Adding a network of sensors isnt going to change much in most of these scenarios.
Yes. The article somehow claims that an "Internet of Things" will somehow be useful for managing tourists. Probably not. Most of the "smart city" efforts seem to be devoted to collecting data that would be useful for marketing, but not city operations.
There's not much interest, say, in sensors which measure ground conductivity between separated points and process that data to detect water main leaks. Yet water system leaks are a big issue for many cities. Sensors mounted on city vehicles to detect and report potholes and road damage would be useful. Put them on garbage trucks; they see most streets regularly. Those are things cities have to fix and need to track.
No, the author wants to track tourists in detail. Guess who wants that data.
There's not much interest, say, in sensors which measure ground conductivity between separated points and process that data to detect water main leaks. Yet water system leaks are a big issue for many cities. Sensors mounted on city vehicles to detect and report potholes and road damage would be useful. Put them on garbage trucks; they see most streets regularly. Those are things cities have to fix and need to track.
No, the author wants to track tourists in detail. Guess who wants that data.
I’m a far cry from an economist, but I’m curious if the sharp rise in tourism over the last couple of decades is an indication that people have much more disposable income than we previously had access.
As the article mentions, travel and lodging has definitely gotten cheaper, however I still feel like, due to stronger economy and more disposable income, world travel is no longer limited to the obscenely wealthy.
If my read on history is correct, world travel just wasn’t available to so many people as it is now.
Is this simply better economics or has our new(ish) interconnected and open world also made travel less scary? Like, since we interact online and trade with people from all over the world, do their different cultures no longer terrify us?
I mean, I try to make it to at least one new country a year, and when I travel it terrifies my Midwestern grandparents. It seems that in their generation, foreign countries and foreign cultures are so distant and extremely scary—I don’t want to imply as if they’re bad people, just that the world was much much bigger and out of reach to their generation for whatever reasons.
[edit] clarification.
As the article mentions, travel and lodging has definitely gotten cheaper, however I still feel like, due to stronger economy and more disposable income, world travel is no longer limited to the obscenely wealthy.
If my read on history is correct, world travel just wasn’t available to so many people as it is now.
Is this simply better economics or has our new(ish) interconnected and open world also made travel less scary? Like, since we interact online and trade with people from all over the world, do their different cultures no longer terrify us?
I mean, I try to make it to at least one new country a year, and when I travel it terrifies my Midwestern grandparents. It seems that in their generation, foreign countries and foreign cultures are so distant and extremely scary—I don’t want to imply as if they’re bad people, just that the world was much much bigger and out of reach to their generation for whatever reasons.
[edit] clarification.
Well, while we are speculating, in a world with better communication, there can be more places of interest to travel to- including ones which are closer to you.
Once people toured the seven wonders, but now most of my friends stay within the country visiting niche spots to recreate or eat a different variety of food. That's a lot harder to do if Joe Small-town can't get the word out about why you should visit.
Once people toured the seven wonders, but now most of my friends stay within the country visiting niche spots to recreate or eat a different variety of food. That's a lot harder to do if Joe Small-town can't get the word out about why you should visit.
The narrative nowadays heavily encourages people to #yolo and live on credit. When everyone around you is getting into debt via epic trips, getting into debt no longer seems like a major problem.
It’s not. It takes two to get in debt, the borrower and the lender. Lenders are lending money and don’t see a problem, and it’s their money at risk.
As millennials get more power and reach a majority, entering their 40s with no monetary assets to speak of, many debts, but still have income, they’ll push for policies to increase inflation and keep interest rates low. This means the debt they owe reduces, their salaries increase, cost of living increases, but only those with cash investments lose out.
This is a failure of the previous generations to ensure that the wealth is spread widely.
When you’re dribbling in a nursing home the millions of dollars you’ve saved aren’t going to wipe your ass, it’s the downtrodden youth.
As millennials get more power and reach a majority, entering their 40s with no monetary assets to speak of, many debts, but still have income, they’ll push for policies to increase inflation and keep interest rates low. This means the debt they owe reduces, their salaries increase, cost of living increases, but only those with cash investments lose out.
This is a failure of the previous generations to ensure that the wealth is spread widely.
When you’re dribbling in a nursing home the millions of dollars you’ve saved aren’t going to wipe your ass, it’s the downtrodden youth.
I think the rise of social media could be a key factor. We become slaves to our photo streams and fall into the arms race of who's got a cooler vacation photo set. Otherwise why would we suffer through huge crowds and lines everywhere we go and then come back for more?
The quick answer is that the price of airplane tickets has taken a nose dive in our lifetime. This is caused by a combination of airline deregulation (in the 80s iirc) and the slow march of fuel economy in aircraft engines. GE/P&W/RR pumped out a ~1% more efficient engine every year for 30 years and the gains have added up. Furthermore online booking cuts out the travel agent middle man.
Couple this with airbnb and now travel is far more within reach to an average person. Why not spend on it.
Couple this with airbnb and now travel is far more within reach to an average person. Why not spend on it.
Gadgets? No thanks. The fundamental problem with tourism isn't crowds (although they are unpleasant), it's inflation - tourists have more money to spend and businesses will naturally align themselves to suck up that money. Compare with situation of huge student populations in small towns in UK: their interests don't align with the incumbent community, therefore tension ensues. The effect is two-fold: increased prices for consumers and increased rent for businesses (with useful places like hardware shops, local pubs and locksmiths being pushed out by Steak and Lobster and Angus Steak House). Using IoT to spread tourists around the city (however that's supposed to work) just brings the problem to more and more communities. London turning into the next Venice isn't going to be stopped by some techies in SV (who, incidentally, ruined up San Francisco in a similar manner to the way tourists are doing so here).
That's like thinking that a city exporting its goods to a foreign market with high income consumers causes inflation in the city.
The businesses that cater to this influx of tourist spending employ locals, which pushes up local wages and spending. The goods/services produced are also not scarce. They can be increased in supply. In fact higher volume retail shops result in more economies of scale, which can reduce local prices.
The businesses that cater to this influx of tourist spending employ locals, which pushes up local wages and spending. The goods/services produced are also not scarce. They can be increased in supply. In fact higher volume retail shops result in more economies of scale, which can reduce local prices.
This is simply not true. Look at Santa Barbara for example: high tourism, high prices and locals are forced to distant outskirts. Local spending doesn’t increase because prices simply go up and locals shop at cheaper places outside of tourist hub. I doubt their wages are any higher either.
Why do you assume that local businesses generating more revenue doesn't contribute to local incomes? It does, almost by definition.
In a housing supply restricted market, tourism can contribute to higher housing costs, but that can be fixed by removing constraints on housing supply, like zoning. And even when this effect is present, its effect on quality of life is counter-acted by the positive effect of tourism spending on local incomes.
In a housing supply restricted market, tourism can contribute to higher housing costs, but that can be fixed by removing constraints on housing supply, like zoning. And even when this effect is present, its effect on quality of life is counter-acted by the positive effect of tourism spending on local incomes.
> Why do you assume that local businesses generating more revenue doesn't contribute to local incomes?
Local businesses do not always generate income from tourists. For example, some of the destinations complaining about overtourism are upset at cruise ships, where the tourists do all their eating, drinking, and sleeping on the boat, and they only walk through the city during the day without spending any significant amount of money.
Local businesses do not always generate income from tourists. For example, some of the destinations complaining about overtourism are upset at cruise ships, where the tourists do all their eating, drinking, and sleeping on the boat, and they only walk through the city during the day without spending any significant amount of money.
The reports I've seen all give a very high average spending level for tourists. I don't think there's any credible argument that they don't inject massive consumer spending into the local economy.
>The businesses that cater to this influx of tourist spending employ locals
Tourism is an industry that pays less than most. Most tourism/hospitality jobs are low-income and menial which compared to the exponential rise in both property value and everyday goods, is peanuts.
Hawaii, a state whose largest contributor to GDP is tourism has 1 in 6 residents living under the poverty line. The lack of other jobs and focus towards locals drives most people to poverty.
Tourism is an industry that pays less than most. Most tourism/hospitality jobs are low-income and menial which compared to the exponential rise in both property value and everyday goods, is peanuts.
Hawaii, a state whose largest contributor to GDP is tourism has 1 in 6 residents living under the poverty line. The lack of other jobs and focus towards locals drives most people to poverty.
You can raise wages just as effectively by increasing the demand for low-skilled labour as by increasing demand for high-skilled labour. The direction that the upward pressure on wages is coming from changes, but it's there nonetheless.
If the locality is fortunate enough to have home-sharing, the profits from tourism accommodations also flow to local pockets, creating potentially thousands of high income micro-hoteliers.
Moreover, not all tourism spending directly contributes to what are traditionally considered "tourism jobs". For example it contributes to more revenues for restaurants, retail businesses, etc.
As for Hawaii, I think a much better explanation for its poverty levels is the migration of people from other parts of the US to enjoy Hawaii's homeless-friendly climate.
If the locality is fortunate enough to have home-sharing, the profits from tourism accommodations also flow to local pockets, creating potentially thousands of high income micro-hoteliers.
Moreover, not all tourism spending directly contributes to what are traditionally considered "tourism jobs". For example it contributes to more revenues for restaurants, retail businesses, etc.
As for Hawaii, I think a much better explanation for its poverty levels is the migration of people from other parts of the US to enjoy Hawaii's homeless-friendly climate.
No - retail space and housing have fixed supply. It's a finite resource, especially in historic city centres. Labour is also finite - would you want to live in a city where the only employment is in the hospitality sector?
Secondly - as I have already mentioned, tourists are price-insensitive, so businesses have no incentive to reduce prices by employing "economies of scale".
Secondly - as I have already mentioned, tourists are price-insensitive, so businesses have no incentive to reduce prices by employing "economies of scale".
How about a resident discount? A reverse tax - you can keep prices high, but locals with a resident ID get a discount - it could be subsidized by the local government.
Tax the tourists and companies like AirBnB.
back in the day, the number of hotel rooms in a city was capped to a reasonable number that was somewhat in line with the amount of available tourist services. Counting AirBnB listings towards the hotel cap would go a long ways to preventing "overtourism"
I say cram them in. Keep them in the cities. A tourist does less damage, and spends more money, in times square than in a forest. In my area, tourists are wrecking our parks, our wild places. Dog bans (to cut back on dog walkers. Dog feet do little damage in comparison) and the closing of trails are being applied to counter the tourist wave. Im for whatever it takes that keeps them on the pavement.
Our city put up new signs in a wooded area that never had signs before. Tour companys now post material on these signs. Locals are chopping down the signs. Keep the woods dark imho.
If one more of them asks me where the twilight house is . .. google that to see of where i speak.
Our city put up new signs in a wooded area that never had signs before. Tour companys now post material on these signs. Locals are chopping down the signs. Keep the woods dark imho.
If one more of them asks me where the twilight house is . .. google that to see of where i speak.
Hmm, so it's the sheer volume of people? What makes you different? Why are you more deserving to walk in those woods than "tourists"? Because you were there first? :)
Is ‘deserving’ the right thing here? Or is it just because he happens to live there and has a longer term interest in the place than visitors for a day or a week?
Yes. Because i use the woods every day for my own enjoyment. The tour companies are there only for profit. I help maintain the trails and when some tourist (or old person) goes missing in those woods me, and my dog, help look for them. We look after the woods. Tourists dont.
I dont say ban any people, but the city should try and keep the tour groups where they can do the least damage
I dont say ban any people, but the city should try and keep the tour groups where they can do the least damage
How about educating people on the overlap between colonialism and tourism?
What if tourism wasn't solely focused on one's own experiences, as though such things exist in a vacuum, and was a spiritual practice in connecting with and respecting other cultures?
Maybe what we need to fix tourism hell is cultivating global cultures of interdependence, respect,community, and service?
Educate tourists to make their effects less hellish; trying to control people is old school management-oriented nonsense. It's time to start respecting people's autonomy more than that.
What if tourism wasn't solely focused on one's own experiences, as though such things exist in a vacuum, and was a spiritual practice in connecting with and respecting other cultures?
Maybe what we need to fix tourism hell is cultivating global cultures of interdependence, respect,community, and service?
Educate tourists to make their effects less hellish; trying to control people is old school management-oriented nonsense. It's time to start respecting people's autonomy more than that.
The webpage crops out a striking part of the header image (unless yr zoom is set to 200%)
https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/GettyImage...
https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/GettyImage...
Leave it to the techies to think "tech can solve it" is the answer to any question mankind can ask.
Can somebody explain what problems tourists are creating?
I live in Toronto and was surprised to hear that the population doubles during the summer, because of a large number of tourists.
Having spent most of my life here, and some of it right next to the biggest tourist attractions - I never thought any of it was a problem. It hasn't affected my quality of life in any way that I'm aware of.
I live in Toronto and was surprised to hear that the population doubles during the summer, because of a large number of tourists.
Having spent most of my life here, and some of it right next to the biggest tourist attractions - I never thought any of it was a problem. It hasn't affected my quality of life in any way that I'm aware of.
The tourist hell mostly affects European cities, which at the same time are usually denser and have a more problematic transport.
In some European cities, native people can't pay the rent to live in reasonable places because tourists will pay more. This has been a problem in Spain (Barcelona & Madrid) and both municipalities are working on it, but it's difficult. At the same time, a lot of stores became tourist specific. In the end, you have two cities at the same time, the old and beautiful for tourists, and an outside city for native people, which native people who lived and worked in the old city, don't like.
In some European cities, native people can't pay the rent to live in reasonable places because tourists will pay more. This has been a problem in Spain (Barcelona & Madrid) and both municipalities are working on it, but it's difficult. At the same time, a lot of stores became tourist specific. In the end, you have two cities at the same time, the old and beautiful for tourists, and an outside city for native people, which native people who lived and worked in the old city, don't like.
> The tourist hell mostly affects European cities, which at the same time are usually denser and have a more problematic transport.
In some European cities, native people can't pay the rent to live in reasonable places because tourists will pay more.
Interesting, as a born and raised American, I find it odd that I keep seeing people praise europe about how great their public transportation and living wages are and yet you claim both suddenly fail when you get some tourists who spend money in your town?
Interesting, as a born and raised American, I find it odd that I keep seeing people praise europe about how great their public transportation and living wages are and yet you claim both suddenly fail when you get some tourists who spend money in your town?
Edinburgh born and resident here, our city centre has become a tourist only zone with tartan tat shops, overpriced restaurants and during August (The Fringe) it’s pretty much impossible to move through town due to the amount of people in this small city. There aren’t really any “locals” in the centre any more as most of the flats have been bought up for AirBnB or student flats. AirBnB flats are notorious as “stag party flats” here, their landlords regularly receive complaints from the few who still live in town. The AirBnB landlords are now expanding into traditionally working class areas, as available housing stock in the centre is astronomically expensive...so it’s hard for young people without a deposit to get on the housing ladder. Our rent market is already through the roof due to the popularity of Edinburgh as a place to live now, so it has driven families out. From a city we used to describe as more like a “village” it’s become a depressingly alien place with transient residents.
It's exactly the same thing in Lisbon.
Pigovian taxes have been a thing for fifty years, yet they are still seldom used. It seems like such an obvious solution to me that the fact it's not used more often (ex: towns banning airbnb vs taxing it) suggests to me that I'm missing something obvious.