I'm not a fan - i totally understand why Venice is doing this, but this is a violation of my freedom of movement as a EU citizen. I'm allowed to visit every country in the EU without restrictions and I'm allowed to walk over every public space there if I want to. If Venice is allowed to do a 5€ entrance fee for their public spaces and the whole city, there is nothing preventing another rich people town from imposing a 5000€ entry fee or something like that and I really don't like that.
Going to the German island of Norderney also costs a fee. Not sure the ferry, but you also pay a certain amount of money per Day. It's called Kurtaxe and it's quite similar to the proposed fee
I get your point, but this is not about your rights as an EU citizen. I am an Italian citizen and I also have to pay, we are getting the same treatment.
Yeah, it's indeed more comparable to the issues with fees to access beaches that already exist in many places. But of course that is an issue because it limits access to public spaces to people who can afford the fee.
not the ideal place to bring up freedom of movement. Better to fight for it in other matters. For example border checks between Austria and Bavaria that have been going on for years now.
This absolutely does not violate the EU's guarantee of freedom of movement for citizens. You're conflating your intuition about how that works ("as an EU citizen i have the right to access any and all public spaces without restriction") with what it actually means (EU member states must treat citizens of other EU member states the same way they treat their own citizens wrt entrance, access to employment, taxation and access to government services).
I think, like you, that what they're doing sucks. I think it sucks less than the alternative, which is that the city become nearly uninhabitable to long term residents due to the tourism crush. But this absolutely isn't a freedom of movement issue and to call it one makes you sound like Americans who think that getting banned from Facebook violates their free speech.
Not everything is always a slippery slope argument...Also good luck enforcing this in any other city. This only works in venice because there are only a few ways to get in. To do that in lets say nice you would need to fortify the city...That will just not happen.
Only a small number of countries have full freedom of movement within their own borders (freedom to roam) and Sweden is one of them (allemansrätten) but plenty of other countries don't. EU freedom of movement only means you can cross borders between EU countries (with related rights for employment, market access, etc). Where you can go within is decided by each country.
Freedom of movement only applies if the restriction on entry is different between nations. If everyone needs to pay the fee, then it is hard to argue that this is restricting your rights.
Tourist tax is a thing in many touristy places in Europe, you usually pay it in cash to the hotel or guesthouse owner and it's around €1 per person-night. So charging €5 for tourists not staying overnight is totally fine and it's weird they didn't do it before.
I don't really care about the fee, but the damage is done isn't it? How many natives still live there who aren't directly involved in the tourism industry?
To be fair, since the city isn't really fit for modern ship trading, it would be abandoned if not for tourism. Or be an exclusive hideout for rich people? You can't really preserve a city in a bubble.
I was in Amsterdam about a year ago with my wife to show her the city and it was insane. We were at the red light district around 11pm and police were there to guide people through the streets. You were only allowed (and able) to walk in a single direction because people density was literally a point away from crushing density.
I fully agree with that Amsterdam and places like it have way, WAY too many tourists
Maybe they just need to start charging an entry fee for that area of the city. Keep increasing the fee until the numbers reach a sane level. Supply and demand.
Or, to go the other direction on it, might be possible to convert the street into an arcade with a walkable roof, make the whole thing basically two-story to double the capacity.
I think that the bigger problem is that Europe needs a Las Vegas, because at least from what I've read, a lot of people in Amsterdam don't want to be it, and Amsterdam isn't really in a great position to massively scale up -- but the demand is there.
You don't know how Amsterdam works, or dutch urbanisation in general.
What Amsterdam needs (and does) is less hotels, less Airbnb's. If tourists can't sleep there's they'll stay away
Also, las Vegas is a horrible god forsaken place. I've been there a number of times and it's like Disneyland with Cancer. People living there live horrible lives on comparison with Dutch cities and the entire place is so artificial that in 20 years from now when the last well is dried out, the city will cease to exist. It's too all the bad that America has to offer
I don't know why some people are so outraged. It's not any different to well established practices in other countries. Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Italy (Alps part)... all have similar guest fees. Sometimes you pay them as part of your stay, sometimes separately.
Yes and no. Things like beach usage might have a fee attached if you're not a resident which is then waived if you paid the hotel tax. There's also going to be free beaches, but don't expect those to be nice, have kiosks, whatnot. Essentially municipal-level private beaches.
I know at least one german municipality where the beach is only allowed to be entered with a Kurticket, at least thats what a sign says, I didnt need to show my card once.
They will since it's already a thing in a lot of places. E.g. German beaches (Kurtaxe). I think Italian beaches as well, albeit that it's private companies with leases there.