134
submitted 4 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 41 points 4 months ago

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 4 months ago

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 4 months ago

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

[-] Bahalex@lemmy.world 2 points 4 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 4 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.

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

World News

38563 readers
2578 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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