
How cities can fix tourism hell - longerthoughts
https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/17/how-cities-can-fix-tourism-hell/
======
elbasti
At risk of being labeled a "neoliberal idealist," why isn't the answer here
simply taxing tourists more?

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.

~~~
dgzl
How would you differentiate a local vs. a tourist?

Edit: is that even legal?

~~~
gsnedders
It's typically a tax on accommodation, rather than anything else.

~~~
dgzl
That's what I thought. Unfortunately that also affects locals, which
diminishes the benefit.

~~~
thenanyu
Locals who stay at hotels? Usually these taxes are only on short term
accommodations like hotels and Airbnb

~~~
dgzl
Yes, if the destination is say a city, then those who live even just an hour
away want to come and stay sometimes. Same is true for beaches and lakes, near
ski resorts, ect.

~~~
isostatic
They’re tourists, so they pay the tax

------
twelvechairs
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

~~~
longerthoughts
>more about efficiency or informing of issues rather than solving the issues
themselves

Isn’t identifying issues a prerequisite for solving them?

~~~
twelvechairs
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.

------
toofy
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.

~~~
nikanj
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.

~~~
isostatic
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.

------
tompccs
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).

~~~
CryptoPunk
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.

~~~
mrhappyunhappy
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.

~~~
CryptoPunk
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.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
> 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.

~~~
CryptoPunk
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.

------
gilbetron
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.

------
Ftuuky
Tax the tourists and companies like AirBnB.

------
notatoad
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"

------
sandworm101
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.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
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? :)

~~~
jackvalentine
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?

------
crawfordcomeaux
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.

------
angel_j
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/GettyImages-468660868.jpg?w=730&crop=1)

------
airstrike
Leave it to the techies to think "tech can solve it" is the answer to any
question mankind can ask.

------
alexashka
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.

~~~
aarroyoc
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.

~~~
mrep
> 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?

~~~
yifanl
Obviously, the public transportation system was implemented based on the
number of local residents.

I imagine that the influx of tourists is well above that number.

~~~
mrep
Do european cities change population sizes that little that you never really
have to adapt your public transportation?

