Tourists with no money are worthless for this town.
They just block up the pavement lining up photos of landmarks (and anything else) with their mobile phones, that they could certainly download from Insta and get a better photo. Every square foot of this town has already been snapped a million times.
The implication of your comment is that poor people should just stay at home and look at pictures on the internet instead of occasionally traveling and experiencing things for themselves.
If this is your perspective, you’re either incredibly privileged, jaded, or both. I don’t think that poor people are necessarily owed cheap accommodation or transportation in any sense, but I also don’t think that active steps should be taken to remove more affordable options simply because they can’t afford to patronize high-end restaurants and stores or do the more expensive tourist activities.
> If this is your perspective, you’re either incredibly privileged, jaded, or both.
My perspective on poor people and travel is that international air-travel is hopelessly underpriced; it isn't reasonable for all 6 billion people in the world to travel for holidays. I don't really care who travels; tourists don't better my bread, whether they're rich or poor. But the argument that tourists are good for the local enconomy depends on them being willing to spend money. Huge columns of overseas students don't spend much money.
My town is pretty, and world-famous. It is quite capable of sustaining itself without tourists; it has two universities, and several large hospitals. Housing is in short supply, and expensive. It's not a great shopping destination; tourists who want to shop shop elsewhere.
> but I also don’t think that active steps should be taken to remove more affordable options
Every housing unit devoted to tourists is a housing unit that isn't available for the local people. The Council is right to try to restrict residential housing to residential use.
