Venice's plight
Jul 12th 2007 | 2:41 am
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1i158ng.2h3r95loo18oN%[email protected]...
> bob fusillo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >>
> > > Bob's just trying to discourage people from going there so he will
> > > have a little more breathing room.
> > > --
> > > Barbara Vaughan
> >
> > Partly that, but more importantly, the crush of tourists is
literally
> > destroying the city., The message is difficult to get across. We get
all
> > these comments here that " it was great when I was there," but they do
not
> > really correspond to reality. There are months when the streets are too
> > crowded to walk -- we have regular grid-locks at intersecions ( the
streets
> > are narrow!) that require police to unblock them. And these mobs are
> > literally wearing things out-- a wall, not matter how seemingly solid,
can
> > withstand just so many millions of scrapings, brushings, leanings et al
> > before it begins to suffer. The stone steps are wearing from billions of
> > treads. And the refuse problem is unbelieavable -- millions of tons in
piles
> > of litter- dry, moist and soggy-- fill many of the campi.
> > And of course, the Venetions have to pay taxes to clean and repair it
> > all.
>
> The solution is disarmingly simple- I've alluded to it before. Charge an
> entrance fee to the city for non-residents. Quite easy to do, for
> obvious reasons. It could be applied in different ways, even through
> train tickets into Venice (for people not from the area.) Lobby for
> that- complaining here is pretty pointless...
>
Who wouldn't pay, say, E35 to get into Venice, assuming that travelling
there to see it has been the aim!
It might well give Venice half a billion Euro a year useful extra income -
in my opinion they should most certainly do this anyway to aid protection,
conservation etc. - but I suspect it would have hardly any effect on tourist
volumes. Yet a higher tax than that could unfairly penalise many.
Physical rationing of volumes is the only other answer - which could create
havoc, a black market in entry tickets, and (similar to a very heavy entry
fee)unfairness in favour of certain tourist industry groupings etc., etc.
Difficult one!
Surreyman
news:1i158ng.2h3r95loo18oN%[email protected]...
> bob fusillo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >>
> > > Bob's just trying to discourage people from going there so he will
> > > have a little more breathing room.
> > > --
> > > Barbara Vaughan
> >
> > Partly that, but more importantly, the crush of tourists is
literally
> > destroying the city., The message is difficult to get across. We get
all
> > these comments here that " it was great when I was there," but they do
not
> > really correspond to reality. There are months when the streets are too
> > crowded to walk -- we have regular grid-locks at intersecions ( the
streets
> > are narrow!) that require police to unblock them. And these mobs are
> > literally wearing things out-- a wall, not matter how seemingly solid,
can
> > withstand just so many millions of scrapings, brushings, leanings et al
> > before it begins to suffer. The stone steps are wearing from billions of
> > treads. And the refuse problem is unbelieavable -- millions of tons in
piles
> > of litter- dry, moist and soggy-- fill many of the campi.
> > And of course, the Venetions have to pay taxes to clean and repair it
> > all.
>
> The solution is disarmingly simple- I've alluded to it before. Charge an
> entrance fee to the city for non-residents. Quite easy to do, for
> obvious reasons. It could be applied in different ways, even through
> train tickets into Venice (for people not from the area.) Lobby for
> that- complaining here is pretty pointless...
>
Who wouldn't pay, say, E35 to get into Venice, assuming that travelling
there to see it has been the aim!
It might well give Venice half a billion Euro a year useful extra income -
in my opinion they should most certainly do this anyway to aid protection,
conservation etc. - but I suspect it would have hardly any effect on tourist
volumes. Yet a higher tax than that could unfairly penalise many.
Physical rationing of volumes is the only other answer - which could create
havoc, a black market in entry tickets, and (similar to a very heavy entry
fee)unfairness in favour of certain tourist industry groupings etc., etc.
Difficult one!
Surreyman
Jul 12th 2007 | 3:48 am
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
On Jul 12, 10:03 am, "bob fusillo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Bob's just trying to discourage people from going there so he will
> > have a little more breathing room.
> > --
> > Barbara Vaughan
>
> Partly that, but more importantly, the crush of tourists is literally
> destroying the city., The message is difficult to get across. We get all
> these comments here that " it was great when I was there," but they do not
> really correspond to reality. There are months when the streets are too
> crowded to walk -- we have regular grid-locks at intersecions ( the streets
> are narrow!) that require police to unblock them. And these mobs are
> literally wearing things out-- a wall, not matter how seemingly solid, can
> withstand just so many millions of scrapings, brushings, leanings et al
> before it begins to suffer. The stone steps are wearing from billions of
> treads. And the refuse problem is unbelieavable -- millions of tons in piles
> of litter- dry, moist and soggy-- fill many of the campi.
> And of course, the Venetions have to pay taxes to clean and repair it
> all.
> Common advice from the "I was there once" visitor seems to be that
> tourists should find less crowded times, but most tourists travel in spring
> summer and autumn, and the crowds are abundant. Late January and early
> February is comparatively un-crowded, but it is cold, damp, and bitter --
> not conducive to leisurely strolling and getting lost.
> It also appears to be common advice to "find out of the way places where
> the mobs aren't." There are such places, of course, but even the people who
> occasionally seek them out also want to see the highlights. There is no
> sense going to Venice and ignoring the places that make you want to go to
> Venice. And so the mobs occur. And do a vast amounts of physical damage.
> People all want to "see the locals and eat where the locals eat." . During
> the day the locals are at work ( many on the mainland) or trapped in their
> homes. (We shop as early as possible and dread having to go out for a couple
> of onions during the day). And at night, the locals are at home watching
> TV. They cannot afford to eat out all the time. We live over a thriving
> restaurant -- over 200 covers at lunch and much the same at nite. Weeks go
> by when never a local is seen. And the more famous places in the
> neighborhood are too expensive for more than a once yearly celebration. (
> Many people seem to think that places where the customers ar3e speaking
> Italian are "local hangouts." But Venetians don't speak Italian to each
> other. Those Italian languge folk are most likely from Milano and Bologna
> No one seems to go to Pittsburgh to "see and eat with the locals." You
> would not expect them to be idly walking the streets or sitting in cafes.
> Why do people assume that Venetians are there for their cultural and
> touristic edification?
If the tourists bother you so much, then why do you live in the middle
of Venice? Why don't you move to the mainland? It's not like Venice
hasn't received huge numbers of tourists for decades - this isn't
exactly something that happened overnight.
I live in New York City, in an untouristed, quiet area. I wouldn't
move to an apartment near Times Square and then complain that there
were too many tourists around all the time.
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Bob's just trying to discourage people from going there so he will
> > have a little more breathing room.
> > --
> > Barbara Vaughan
>
> Partly that, but more importantly, the crush of tourists is literally
> destroying the city., The message is difficult to get across. We get all
> these comments here that " it was great when I was there," but they do not
> really correspond to reality. There are months when the streets are too
> crowded to walk -- we have regular grid-locks at intersecions ( the streets
> are narrow!) that require police to unblock them. And these mobs are
> literally wearing things out-- a wall, not matter how seemingly solid, can
> withstand just so many millions of scrapings, brushings, leanings et al
> before it begins to suffer. The stone steps are wearing from billions of
> treads. And the refuse problem is unbelieavable -- millions of tons in piles
> of litter- dry, moist and soggy-- fill many of the campi.
> And of course, the Venetions have to pay taxes to clean and repair it
> all.
> Common advice from the "I was there once" visitor seems to be that
> tourists should find less crowded times, but most tourists travel in spring
> summer and autumn, and the crowds are abundant. Late January and early
> February is comparatively un-crowded, but it is cold, damp, and bitter --
> not conducive to leisurely strolling and getting lost.
> It also appears to be common advice to "find out of the way places where
> the mobs aren't." There are such places, of course, but even the people who
> occasionally seek them out also want to see the highlights. There is no
> sense going to Venice and ignoring the places that make you want to go to
> Venice. And so the mobs occur. And do a vast amounts of physical damage.
> People all want to "see the locals and eat where the locals eat." . During
> the day the locals are at work ( many on the mainland) or trapped in their
> homes. (We shop as early as possible and dread having to go out for a couple
> of onions during the day). And at night, the locals are at home watching
> TV. They cannot afford to eat out all the time. We live over a thriving
> restaurant -- over 200 covers at lunch and much the same at nite. Weeks go
> by when never a local is seen. And the more famous places in the
> neighborhood are too expensive for more than a once yearly celebration. (
> Many people seem to think that places where the customers ar3e speaking
> Italian are "local hangouts." But Venetians don't speak Italian to each
> other. Those Italian languge folk are most likely from Milano and Bologna
> No one seems to go to Pittsburgh to "see and eat with the locals." You
> would not expect them to be idly walking the streets or sitting in cafes.
> Why do people assume that Venetians are there for their cultural and
> touristic edification?
If the tourists bother you so much, then why do you live in the middle
of Venice? Why don't you move to the mainland? It's not like Venice
hasn't received huge numbers of tourists for decades - this isn't
exactly something that happened overnight.
I live in New York City, in an untouristed, quiet area. I wouldn't
move to an apartment near Times Square and then complain that there
were too many tourists around all the time.
Jul 12th 2007 | 3:50 am
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 10:03 am, "bob fusillo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No one seems to go to Pittsburgh to "see and eat with the locals." You
> > would not expect them to be idly walking the streets or sitting in cafes.
> > Why do people assume that Venetians are there for their cultural and
> > touristic edification?
>
>
> If the tourists bother you so much, then why do you live in the middle
> of Venice? Why don't you move to the mainland? It's not like Venice
> hasn't received huge numbers of tourists for decades - this isn't
> exactly something that happened overnight.
>
> I live in New York City, in an untouristed, quiet area. I wouldn't
> move to an apartment near Times Square and then complain that there
> were too many tourists around all the time.
And, as I think you suggest, there are plenty of 'quieter' parts of
Venice.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> On Jul 12, 10:03 am, "bob fusillo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No one seems to go to Pittsburgh to "see and eat with the locals." You
> > would not expect them to be idly walking the streets or sitting in cafes.
> > Why do people assume that Venetians are there for their cultural and
> > touristic edification?
>
>
> If the tourists bother you so much, then why do you live in the middle
> of Venice? Why don't you move to the mainland? It's not like Venice
> hasn't received huge numbers of tourists for decades - this isn't
> exactly something that happened overnight.
>
> I live in New York City, in an untouristed, quiet area. I wouldn't
> move to an apartment near Times Square and then complain that there
> were too many tourists around all the time.
And, as I think you suggest, there are plenty of 'quieter' parts of
Venice.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Jul 12th 2007 | 4:53 am
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:03:26 -0400, "bob fusillo"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>>>
>> Bob's just trying to discourage people from going there so he will
>> have a little more breathing room.
>> --
>> Barbara Vaughan
>
> Partly that, but more importantly, the crush of tourists is literally
>destroying the city.,
So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>>>
>> Bob's just trying to discourage people from going there so he will
>> have a little more breathing room.
>> --
>> Barbara Vaughan
>
> Partly that, but more importantly, the crush of tourists is literally
>destroying the city.,
So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
Jul 13th 2007 | 3:12 am
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1i158ng.2h3r95loo18oN%> The solution is disarmingly simple- I've
alluded to it before. Charge an
> entrance fee to the city for non-residents. Quite easy to do, for
> obvious reasons. It could be applied in different ways, even through
> train tickets into Venice (for people not from the area.) Lobby for
> that- complaining here is pretty pointless...
I am not at all sure that you mean by quite easy. It has been attempted --
but there are many ways to get into the city, as the taxed bus drivers
learned. Via Chioggia, Jesolo, via water taxi from a variety of points, and
the bridge, cars, buses, and your train. Do you suggest ticket booths at all
entrances?
They have tried raising the vaporetto fares, and the day trippers walk. An
entrance fee would raise money, but as someone here says, after paying
thousands to get here, a few extra euro to get into Disneyland/Venice would
not bother people too much..rjf
news:1i158ng.2h3r95loo18oN%> The solution is disarmingly simple- I've
alluded to it before. Charge an
> entrance fee to the city for non-residents. Quite easy to do, for
> obvious reasons. It could be applied in different ways, even through
> train tickets into Venice (for people not from the area.) Lobby for
> that- complaining here is pretty pointless...
I am not at all sure that you mean by quite easy. It has been attempted --
but there are many ways to get into the city, as the taxed bus drivers
learned. Via Chioggia, Jesolo, via water taxi from a variety of points, and
the bridge, cars, buses, and your train. Do you suggest ticket booths at all
entrances?
They have tried raising the vaporetto fares, and the day trippers walk. An
entrance fee would raise money, but as someone here says, after paying
thousands to get here, a few extra euro to get into Disneyland/Venice would
not bother people too much..rjf
Jul 13th 2007 | 3:19 am
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
"Iceman" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> If the tourists bother you so much, then why do you live in the middle
> of Venice? Why don't you move to the mainland? It's not like Venice
> hasn't received huge numbers of tourists for decades - this isn't
> exactly something that happened overnight.
Moving is exactly what many Venetians are doing, thereby eroding the little
tax base even more. The influx has been comparatively overnite. The "number
of tourists" has multiplied many times in the last couple of decades, and
promises, with the Chinese influx, to grow much larger. We don't mind
tourists as such-- they are here for pleasure and we are proud of the
town -- but there has to be a limit in some way or the place won't survive
to welcome tourists in the future. This is not exaggeration.
rjf
> If the tourists bother you so much, then why do you live in the middle
> of Venice? Why don't you move to the mainland? It's not like Venice
> hasn't received huge numbers of tourists for decades - this isn't
> exactly something that happened overnight.
Moving is exactly what many Venetians are doing, thereby eroding the little
tax base even more. The influx has been comparatively overnite. The "number
of tourists" has multiplied many times in the last couple of decades, and
promises, with the Chinese influx, to grow much larger. We don't mind
tourists as such-- they are here for pleasure and we are proud of the
town -- but there has to be a limit in some way or the place won't survive
to welcome tourists in the future. This is not exaggeration.
rjf
Jul 13th 2007 | 3:21 am
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1i15dfa.1mi9cc24ieh4xN%[email protected]...
>> And, as I think you suggest, there are plenty of 'quieter' parts of
> Venice.
>
One can hide only for a time-- there is shopping to be done, friends to
visit etc. Sooner or later the hordes must be faced. As I suggested,
Venetians do tend to hide a lot -- and they hate having to do so.
news:1i15dfa.1mi9cc24ieh4xN%[email protected]...
>> And, as I think you suggest, there are plenty of 'quieter' parts of
> Venice.
>
One can hide only for a time-- there is shopping to be done, friends to
visit etc. Sooner or later the hordes must be faced. As I suggested,
Venetians do tend to hide a lot -- and they hate having to do so.
Jul 13th 2007 | 3:32 am
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
"B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
>
>
Are you implying that only native born Venetians should be allowed to live
here? My relationship, albeit as a foreign type such as you, dates to the
mid-fifties. I predate most natives. Someone above hinted that I should
move, as do you. The rather self righteous attitude seems to be that the
residents should get out to make room for the frolicing tourists. Our
greatest fear is that Venice will become, as it almost is, a Disneyland. No
people live in Disneyland either.
But that's not the point. The problem is not whether there are tourists, it
is that the tourists are doing more and more irreparable damage to what is a
small and fragile town. And the future holds the promise of more and more.
rjf
news:[email protected]...
> > So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
>
>
Are you implying that only native born Venetians should be allowed to live
here? My relationship, albeit as a foreign type such as you, dates to the
mid-fifties. I predate most natives. Someone above hinted that I should
move, as do you. The rather self righteous attitude seems to be that the
residents should get out to make room for the frolicing tourists. Our
greatest fear is that Venice will become, as it almost is, a Disneyland. No
people live in Disneyland either.
But that's not the point. The problem is not whether there are tourists, it
is that the tourists are doing more and more irreparable damage to what is a
small and fragile town. And the future holds the promise of more and more.
rjf
Jul 13th 2007 | 3:45 am
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
bob fusillo <[email protected]> wrote:
> "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1i158ng.2h3r95loo18oN%> The solution is disarmingly simple- I've
> alluded to it before. Charge an
> > entrance fee to the city for non-residents. Quite easy to do, for
> > obvious reasons. It could be applied in different ways, even through
> > train tickets into Venice (for people not from the area.) Lobby for
> > that- complaining here is pretty pointless...
>
> I am not at all sure that you mean by quite easy. It has been attempted --
> but there are many ways to get into the city, as the taxed bus drivers
> learned. Via Chioggia, Jesolo, via water taxi from a variety of points, and
> the bridge, cars, buses, and your train. Do you suggest ticket booths at all
> entrances?
If necessary yes.
> They have tried raising the vaporetto fares, and the day trippers walk. An
> entrance fee would raise money, but as someone here says, after paying
> thousands to get here, a few extra euro to get into Disneyland/Venice would
> not bother people too much..rjf
Not every visitor to Venice pays a lot to get there. My flight from
Liverpool to Treviso in April was about the same cost as a meal for two
in Venice.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1i158ng.2h3r95loo18oN%> The solution is disarmingly simple- I've
> alluded to it before. Charge an
> > entrance fee to the city for non-residents. Quite easy to do, for
> > obvious reasons. It could be applied in different ways, even through
> > train tickets into Venice (for people not from the area.) Lobby for
> > that- complaining here is pretty pointless...
>
> I am not at all sure that you mean by quite easy. It has been attempted --
> but there are many ways to get into the city, as the taxed bus drivers
> learned. Via Chioggia, Jesolo, via water taxi from a variety of points, and
> the bridge, cars, buses, and your train. Do you suggest ticket booths at all
> entrances?
If necessary yes.
> They have tried raising the vaporetto fares, and the day trippers walk. An
> entrance fee would raise money, but as someone here says, after paying
> thousands to get here, a few extra euro to get into Disneyland/Venice would
> not bother people too much..rjf
Not every visitor to Venice pays a lot to get there. My flight from
Liverpool to Treviso in April was about the same cost as a meal for two
in Venice.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Jul 13th 2007 | 5:11 am
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
On Jul 13, 11:32 am, "bob fusillo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]... > > So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
>
> Are you implying that only native born Venetians should be allowed to live
> here? My relationship, albeit as a foreign type such as you, dates to the
> mid-fifties. I predate most natives. Someone above hinted that I should
> move, as do you. The rather self righteous attitude seems to be that the
> residents should get out to make room for the frolicing tourists. Our
> greatest fear is that Venice will become, as it almost is, a Disneyland. No
> people live in Disneyland either.
> But that's not the point. The problem is not whether there are tourists, it
> is that the tourists are doing more and more irreparable damage to what is a
> small and fragile town. And the future holds the promise of more and more.
> rjf
Even assuming there was some way to reduce the tourist numbers by 50%,
you would still have to contend with massive crowds, so for practical
purposes it wouldn't make much difference to the residents, except
that the city's tourism revenue would be significantly lower, and a
lot of the tourist businesses would suffer.
There's no conceivable way to reduce the tourist numbers by 80-90% and
bring back the Venice that existed before cheap commercial jet travel
and widespread middle class incomes enabled mass tourism.
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]... > > So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
>
> Are you implying that only native born Venetians should be allowed to live
> here? My relationship, albeit as a foreign type such as you, dates to the
> mid-fifties. I predate most natives. Someone above hinted that I should
> move, as do you. The rather self righteous attitude seems to be that the
> residents should get out to make room for the frolicing tourists. Our
> greatest fear is that Venice will become, as it almost is, a Disneyland. No
> people live in Disneyland either.
> But that's not the point. The problem is not whether there are tourists, it
> is that the tourists are doing more and more irreparable damage to what is a
> small and fragile town. And the future holds the promise of more and more.
> rjf
Even assuming there was some way to reduce the tourist numbers by 50%,
you would still have to contend with massive crowds, so for practical
purposes it wouldn't make much difference to the residents, except
that the city's tourism revenue would be significantly lower, and a
lot of the tourist businesses would suffer.
There's no conceivable way to reduce the tourist numbers by 80-90% and
bring back the Venice that existed before cheap commercial jet travel
and widespread middle class incomes enabled mass tourism.
Jul 13th 2007 | 5:18 am
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
bob fusillo <[email protected]> wrote:
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
> >
> >
> Are you implying that only native born Venetians should be allowed to live
> here? My relationship, albeit as a foreign type such as you, dates to the
> mid-fifties. I predate most natives. Someone above hinted that I should
> move, as do you. The rather self righteous attitude seems to be that the
> residents should get out to make room for the frolicing tourists.
The point is that you moved there, I assume, because of the beauty of
the city. That's the same reason it's visited so much.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> "B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
> >
> >
> Are you implying that only native born Venetians should be allowed to live
> here? My relationship, albeit as a foreign type such as you, dates to the
> mid-fifties. I predate most natives. Someone above hinted that I should
> move, as do you. The rather self righteous attitude seems to be that the
> residents should get out to make room for the frolicing tourists.
The point is that you moved there, I assume, because of the beauty of
the city. That's the same reason it's visited so much.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Jul 13th 2007 | 5:22 am
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
> There's no conceivable way to reduce the tourist numbers by 80-90% and
> bring back the Venice that existed before cheap commercial jet travel
> and widespread middle class incomes enabled mass tourism.
There is if they simply taxed visitors to the hilt. Then, people would
certainly think twice before taking that cheap flight. It's not
impossible to do- I just don't think anyone will do it.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
[]
> There's no conceivable way to reduce the tourist numbers by 80-90% and
> bring back the Venice that existed before cheap commercial jet travel
> and widespread middle class incomes enabled mass tourism.
There is if they simply taxed visitors to the hilt. Then, people would
certainly think twice before taking that cheap flight. It's not
impossible to do- I just don't think anyone will do it.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
Jul 13th 2007 | 5:23 am
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:32:07 -0400, "bob fusillo"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> > So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
>>
>>
>Are you implying that only native born Venetians should be allowed to live
>here?
No, but if you came from elsewhere, it doesn't seem just to complain
about the influx.
I seem to remember that you live in the US a good deal of the time.
> My relationship, albeit as a foreign type such as you, dates to the
>mid-fifties. I predate most natives. Someone above hinted that I should
>move, as do you.
No, they only comment was that if the crowding disturbs you, you might
want to move.
> The rather self righteous attitude seems to be that the
>residents should get out to make room for the frolicing tourists.
I don't see what's self righteous about our comments. Again, I was
presuming that Venice is your second home and that you have a
principal residence elsewhere.
Our
>greatest fear is that Venice will become, as it almost is, a Disneyland. No
>people live in Disneyland either.
>But that's not the point. The problem is not whether there are tourists, it
>is that the tourists are doing more and more irreparable damage to what is a
>small and fragile town. And the future holds the promise of more and more.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> > So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
>>
>>
>Are you implying that only native born Venetians should be allowed to live
>here?
No, but if you came from elsewhere, it doesn't seem just to complain
about the influx.
I seem to remember that you live in the US a good deal of the time.
> My relationship, albeit as a foreign type such as you, dates to the
>mid-fifties. I predate most natives. Someone above hinted that I should
>move, as do you.
No, they only comment was that if the crowding disturbs you, you might
want to move.
> The rather self righteous attitude seems to be that the
>residents should get out to make room for the frolicing tourists.
I don't see what's self righteous about our comments. Again, I was
presuming that Venice is your second home and that you have a
principal residence elsewhere.
Our
>greatest fear is that Venice will become, as it almost is, a Disneyland. No
>people live in Disneyland either.
>But that's not the point. The problem is not whether there are tourists, it
>is that the tourists are doing more and more irreparable damage to what is a
>small and fragile town. And the future holds the promise of more and more.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
Jul 13th 2007 | 5:46 am
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
On Jul 13, 1:22 pm, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
> Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There's no conceivable way to reduce the tourist numbers by 80-90% and
> > bring back the Venice that existed before cheap commercial jet travel
> > and widespread middle class incomes enabled mass tourism.
>
> There is if they simply taxed visitors to the hilt. Then, people would
> certainly think twice before taking that cheap flight. It's not
> impossible to do- I just don't think anyone will do it.
I think even a $30 charge would hardly reduce visitor numbers, but it
might raise a lot of revenues for the city, which could go into
preservation. Maybe the city should do more to encourage visitors to
check out other places besides St. Mark's and the Doge's Palace, which
might at least help spread the crowds out more.
A $100 charge would keep away backpackers, a lot of the Ryanair
weekend trip crowd, and many visitors from nearby parts of Italy from
going frequently just because it's close - so THAT might reduce the
numbers 50%. It wouldn't keep away wealthier tourists, honeymooners,
or a lot of bus tours - what's another $100 per person on a trip of a
few thousand? But it would really hurt all tourist-dependent
businesses.
You'd need to charge hundreds of dollars to get the numbers down
80-90%, and the real locals would never want that because it would
completely destroy Venice's restaurants, hotels, and souvenir stores.
It's just a few rich people who live elsewhere and own apartments in
Venice that they visit a few weeks a year that complain that THEIR
Venice is being ruined.
(*)) wrote:
> Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There's no conceivable way to reduce the tourist numbers by 80-90% and
> > bring back the Venice that existed before cheap commercial jet travel
> > and widespread middle class incomes enabled mass tourism.
>
> There is if they simply taxed visitors to the hilt. Then, people would
> certainly think twice before taking that cheap flight. It's not
> impossible to do- I just don't think anyone will do it.
I think even a $30 charge would hardly reduce visitor numbers, but it
might raise a lot of revenues for the city, which could go into
preservation. Maybe the city should do more to encourage visitors to
check out other places besides St. Mark's and the Doge's Palace, which
might at least help spread the crowds out more.
A $100 charge would keep away backpackers, a lot of the Ryanair
weekend trip crowd, and many visitors from nearby parts of Italy from
going frequently just because it's close - so THAT might reduce the
numbers 50%. It wouldn't keep away wealthier tourists, honeymooners,
or a lot of bus tours - what's another $100 per person on a trip of a
few thousand? But it would really hurt all tourist-dependent
businesses.
You'd need to charge hundreds of dollars to get the numbers down
80-90%, and the real locals would never want that because it would
completely destroy Venice's restaurants, hotels, and souvenir stores.
It's just a few rich people who live elsewhere and own apartments in
Venice that they visit a few weeks a year that complain that THEIR
Venice is being ruined.
Jul 13th 2007 | 5:53 am
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Venice's plight
Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 1:22 pm, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
> > Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > There's no conceivable way to reduce the tourist numbers by 80-90% and
> > > bring back the Venice that existed before cheap commercial jet travel
> > > and widespread middle class incomes enabled mass tourism.
> >
> > There is if they simply taxed visitors to the hilt. Then, people would
> > certainly think twice before taking that cheap flight. It's not
> > impossible to do- I just don't think anyone will do it.
>
>
> I think even a $30 charge would hardly reduce visitor numbers, but it
> might raise a lot of revenues for the city, which could go into
> preservation. Maybe the city should do more to encourage visitors to
> check out other places besides St. Mark's and the Doge's Palace, which
> might at least help spread the crowds out more.
>
> A $100 charge would keep away backpackers, a lot of the Ryanair
> weekend trip crowd, and many visitors from nearby parts of Italy from
> going frequently just because it's close - so THAT might reduce the
> numbers 50%. It wouldn't keep away wealthier tourists, honeymooners,
> or a lot of bus tours - what's another $100 per person on a trip of a
> few thousand? But it would really hurt all tourist-dependent
> businesses.
Possibly- but the revenue could be used for other things- including the
preservation you mention. The $100 charge sounds good to me. Remember
that for people from countries like the UK, Ireland and Scandinavia
(etc.), Venice is not that expensive.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
> On Jul 13, 1:22 pm, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
> (*)) wrote:
> > Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > There's no conceivable way to reduce the tourist numbers by 80-90% and
> > > bring back the Venice that existed before cheap commercial jet travel
> > > and widespread middle class incomes enabled mass tourism.
> >
> > There is if they simply taxed visitors to the hilt. Then, people would
> > certainly think twice before taking that cheap flight. It's not
> > impossible to do- I just don't think anyone will do it.
>
>
> I think even a $30 charge would hardly reduce visitor numbers, but it
> might raise a lot of revenues for the city, which could go into
> preservation. Maybe the city should do more to encourage visitors to
> check out other places besides St. Mark's and the Doge's Palace, which
> might at least help spread the crowds out more.
>
> A $100 charge would keep away backpackers, a lot of the Ryanair
> weekend trip crowd, and many visitors from nearby parts of Italy from
> going frequently just because it's close - so THAT might reduce the
> numbers 50%. It wouldn't keep away wealthier tourists, honeymooners,
> or a lot of bus tours - what's another $100 per person on a trip of a
> few thousand? But it would really hurt all tourist-dependent
> businesses.
Possibly- but the revenue could be used for other things- including the
preservation you mention. The $100 charge sounds good to me. Remember
that for people from countries like the UK, Ireland and Scandinavia
(etc.), Venice is not that expensive.
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007
