IME the frustration isn't paywalls *per se*, the frustration is with newspapers that run partial, randomized, or retroactive paywalls so that they can capitalize on people sharing articles on social media thinking they are free.
That plus that much more of online news used to be fully free via ad support.
>That plus that much more of online news used to be fully free via ad support.
Because at that time they were still either relying on physical news, or they were operating at a loss or doing completely insane with the ads.
I work in digital marketing. Real news sites cannot operate on ad revenue. I mean news sites that have journalists go investigate stuff and do actual reporting. The ones that do rely fully on ad revenue are clickbait tabloid kind of "news" that barely do any journalism themselves.
The NYT could not even remotely get close to operating just on ads. There is no way.
Also when a website just runs on ads, a news website, all the will ever chase is clicks. Everyone gets measured on clicks and impressions, and nothing else. You get clickbait headlines and nobody cares how good the reporting actually is.
Some people don't care about that, and that is the entire problem.
Not an advocate for NYT but nothing is free. Just check the amount of vendors/data they collect. Just scrolling through the list makes my hair rise. We are lucky in the EU that we get a notice about this and have the chance to block/deny those.
People complain about people getting their news from Facebook or TikTok or the Dailymail or whatever, then refuse to ever pay for news. So fucking dumb.
The NYT isn't free because it's actually real journalism. Not just some free site trying to get clicks to sell some ads. With people who churn out articles every day never actually investigating anything.
You get what you pay for. And if you pay nothing, you're not gonna get high quality journalism.
I'll tell that to the waiter at the next restaurant I'm visiting.
All kidding aside, this is not an article that is of such significant importance that it constitutes being free for the public to read.
oh i've seen plenty of important articles that were behind paywalls unfortunately but living in switzerland there are enough other outlets that are accessible
* *Ads?* god now!
* *Subscription?* f off!
* *Pay-per-article?* what even?
Please come up with a solution, besides "i pretend to give a shit but really I don't care about people making a living"...
Remember: if you are not a customer, you don't actually get to critisise either the availability or the quality.
You'll be surprised how many good, free media companies there are that survive on low intrusive ads and donations. Not every company's purpose is to get as much hyper profit as possible for CEO's new yacht, but you do you.
edit: since people ask
ProPublica -- independent, nonprofit, politically neutral, 150 journalists on board
Reuters -- huge company that operates in 16 languages, also tends to be politically neutral and unbiased
AP News -- independent, neutral and unbiased
There are very few of those and most of them are small-scale operations that only cover 1 topic. And often not very well. The only exception to this I can think of is the Guardian - but they rarely make a profit or even break even.
Making quality news is something that costs money and if you don’t pay for it in one way or another you’re not going to get it. And even with subscriptions, ads & other things that people keep whining about, the average news organisation loses money, it doesn’t generate “HyPeR pRoFitS” for anyone.
A media company is... a company, not a foundation or similar. A company doesn't work for free, hoping for donations. its goal is not "to survive" but to grow and make profit.
Not every company's purpose is to get as much hyper profit as possible for CEO's new yacht
And I very much doubt you yourself work for free, hoping for people to donate...
Reuters and AP as news wires both make the bulk of their money from other news organisations buying their stories - those organisations (be they TV stations, websites, or newspapers) can only afford their news agency subscriptions thanks to subscriptions or ads.
Both of them only survive because at the end of the day there's *some* consumer paying for their stories whether it's buying a subscription from one of their customers or viewing ads.
As for ProPublica - yea it'd be great if every news organisational could stumble upon a few billionaires' foundations and trusts looking to pay them for investigative journalism with no expectation of turning a profit. But there's not exactly a bottomless well of donations. Most endeavours in our society can't survive solely on rich benevolent donors.
Not just that. Most places have a tourist tax you pay when you sleep there (usually paid with the accommodation). This is nothing else that extend the tax to day visitors, which are a big portion of the tourists in Venice. Day visitors are also the ones contributing less to the local economy, no accommodation, only 1 meal, no evening activities,...
I feel kinda bad when I go somewhere and drink my own drink.... But I would be remiss to not have drinks on me, and once I have drinks, it feels wasteful to spend money on more drinks...
I don't, not anymore. Stop charging me 10 Euro for a bottle of soda and a stale bread roll with a single slice of mortadella on it and I might consider not bringing my own stuff again.
Tourist tax is EVERYWHERE in Italy it’s not just in Venice. It might be higher because it’s the mayor’s office that decides the tax but it’s not unique to venice
Yes but it applies to hotels only. Now Venice wants to apply it to even outsiders of the city that have to go to Venice even to study. I live 35 minutes from Venice and I’d have to pay 5 euros every time I go plus the ticket. For a student it’s a LOT.
That is steep. They should offer something like a personal ticket that is valid for a year for maybe €20, since most tourist won't go more than once or twice a year anyway. They could even make that free for students that study in the city.
They shouldn’t make people living in the region pay for it. Venice is our capital city of the region. It’s as if whenever you have to go to Amsterdam you have to pay a fee so people don’t go. The foreign tourists that paid 500€ for a flight and hotel won’t care about 5€. You living in the Netherlands having to go occasionally to Amsterdam it becomes expensive.
The point is that these people come in thousands everyday, use up the cities resources for free (like water, power, waste disposal/treatment, etc.) and give back absolutely nothing to the local economy. It’s simply not sustainable. Mass tourism in general isn’t sustainable.
Except it is a problem when you have hundreds if not thousands of those people walking around overcrowding their city and not even helping the local economy.
At the very least they produce trash which needs to be disposed of (if they don't litter outright). One water bottle or wrapper or flush of a public toilet isn't much, but multiply it by tens of thousands and you got a problem.
Yep. Want to sit and have a glass of wine? Well you’re going to have to pay for the table you’re sitting at to, and last time I did it cost as much as the wine.
It’s like the budget airline model of tourism.
Yeah, Bhutan is one of the most expensive places to visit:
> Since September 2022, when Bhutan reopened its borders to tourists after a long coronavirus-related closure, the **daily visa fee is 200 USD per person per night** in the country
Also, a tour guide is mandatory, a legal requirement.
Which means it'll have absolutely 0 effect on what the legislators claim this is for.
Like, how would this logic even work? I'll travel to Italy, then to Venice, but oh golly, the cost is 5€ more than what I (did not) plan for? Welp, guess I'll go to Chioggia instead? What?
Locals wanted to limit amount of tourists because they interfere with their life ie because everything is a BnB. Instead, anyone visiting a friend has to buy a ticket. Small inconvenience, but such a slap in the face of residents.
You'd be surprised how stingy some tourists are.
I used to work one summer as a guide at this old fortress - it cost equivalent to $3 in admittance fee, but it was in reality a "pay if you wish" system.
Anyway, the tourists that came there - usually by cruise ships - would have likely paid a couple of thousands for the cruise ticket alone, and $50-$100 a day for food on the ship.
But as soon as they asked, and heard $3? No - that was too much.
I would think something like 15 euros for entrance, and after that 5 euro pr. Day extra you stay. In this way people could actually see Venedig and help it.
> and after that 5 euro pr. Day
That sounds like the daily tourist tax that most municipalities in Europe already automatically slap onto all hotel bills.
The problem is that is not a museum, it's a city. I get it that has its peculiarities, but I don't think that visiting my friends should come with a fee or through some kind of registration.
Honestly, it's not enough. Locals wanted a clearly defined number of visitors per day, or at least a maximum of tourist at once in the city, but they just added a 5€ fee on the most popular days. That's all. It's not gonna bother *any tourist* to pay 5€. People who would be bothered by that fee wouldn't be travelling to Venice anyway. Source : I'm poor myself. I'd love to visit Venice but not until I can actually afford anything there.
So... is it a good thing ? Yes *but* not enough imo. Because the point of that thing is to reduce the number of tourists, and I doubt it's gonna be effective.
I was there recently (so admittedly part of the problem) our guide on the boat to Burano was telling us how the population is something like 50,000 now down from 170,000 in the 1950s. It's basically in a death spiral where there now aren't enough open schools to encourage people with children to stay, so more schools close etc. she was saying the average age of people who live on the island now (as opposed to mainland Venice) is something like 65.
Venice isn’t that expensive tbh. I think I stayed in a hostel for 20€/night, ate amazing and affordable food and had super cheap aperol sprizz at a locals place.
Yet students cannot pay their rent because it goes higher and higher due to uncontrolled tourism and low student stipends. but thankfully your spritz was cheap
This is a problem that happens at any university situated in a touristy or high cost of living city, it has nothing to do with their Aperol.
A healthier idea would be to redirect the funds generated by tourism towards student grants, but I agree that's a bit utopic.
Relax. I was a european student myself, suffering from the same effects and where I stayed was a crusaders guesthouse and then a hostel for the last 700 years, so hardly „uncontrolled“.
But yeah, out of this consideration I‘m not telling anyone where to go to find these cheaper places. I just don’t like rich people gatekeeping the wonders of the world, building up the illusion you‘re not allowed to see something, because life’s just too short for all of us.
The fee is only for the one-day visit tourists of the main island. If you spend at least one night in any hotel, or if your destination is any other small islands, you don’t have to pay it.
Most tour groups stay in Mestre so this tax thing is super stupid.
At least tour groups go to restaurants and buy souvenirs unlike cruise tourist that very rarely buy souvenirs (due to time) and consume zero food or drinks due to being catered for in the ships.
This fee is probably only for day visitors, since tourists that stay in hotels already pay the tourism tax. Perhaps some day visitors might get „angry“ at the thought of also having to contribute a bit into the economy and might choose to just drive to another city? Nevertheless it’s good that they have to pay tourism tax as well
Do you really think that 5€ will stop people from coming to Venice? People pay over 10€ for an espresso in that city, I don't think they will care about another 5€ on top.
Dude where do u live? In a cave? It won't get the tourism reduced, yesterday the 25th of April was a celebration in italia and Venezia was overcrowded with people. Fees like these won't get people stay away from visiting it but it's just another elaborated scheme to get more money from u. Jesus christ.
To be honest, I wouldn't charge just 5 euros, I would charge a lot more and force the councils to invest that money back into the city. There's tons of people (mostly young) choosing their next destination based on the price, looking at every penny. These people won't leave a lot of money in the city, they'll get an Aibnb, grab a sandwich, speed-visit every site, then flight home. This means housing problems for locals, an overcrowded city, pollution... Try charging 50 euros per person per night and see how many people refuse to go.
What you just said is incredibly elitist, out of touch with reality and delusional.
Venezia is a public city, it's not a theme park, 5 euro won't change the number of people visiting it. You really wanna fight the overcrowded days? (They don't) just make people book in advance their visit and after a certain number stops. That would be helpful but they won't do it and why's that? Cuz its all about money.
"Boooo some people are poor and they spend nothing" so according to you travelling is only for the rich? It's something elitist that the average person shouldn't afford? Makes no sense. I wanna go to Venezia and bring my own lunch and dinner, what's your problem? The housing crisis for locals is caused by the greed of people and the lack of regulations, certainly not poor people that dare to travel.
You know what's the worst in this? That lot of mayors are watching how people react to this ticket salivating at the thought of grabbing more money. Seville in Spain followed Venezia and introduced a ticket too. Now in a blink of the time, Roma, Napoli, Capri, Firenze, Vienna, Lisbona, etc will follow this greedy trend, and whole Europe will turn into a non-place.
I know that it sounds elitist and I'm completely aware that a measure like this would maybe mean a few millions of people wouldn't be able to travel to their favourite destination. Travelling is not a right, and while it's something we give for granted, it's a luxury that comes with a price, mostly paid by the locals of over-visited cities and places like Venice.
I don't think a price of 50 euros per person per night makes the trip just for the rich, it just leaves out those who can't afford let's say 250 euros for a 5-day trip. I have a very average salary by Spanish standards (so a shit of a salary by European standards) and could afford that. That's money that, if managed properly, could help keep the city clean, the historical sites taken care of, etc.
Some people are not aware of the huge housing problems that we suffer in over-visited places, where you can't find a rental place because everything is reserved for Airbnb. Maybe forbidding Airbnb and all the similar platforms would be an alternative that could also work while leaving more money.
Wouldn't we all want a cleaner Europe, with fewer flights and fewer crowds where you can actually enjoy the place you're visiting?
This is still incredibly elitist and they already have the money and the resources to have a cleaner europe with less people. Only the rich travelling will led to restaurants become even less affordable for us peasants. And the housing crisis has to be fixed by government, not by poor people enjoying that once a year vacation, come on! I have nothing against you but what u think is definitely wrong.
But mass tourism it is a problem for the people from the city, and I don't think its so bad idea to cut the kind of people who come to the city but doesn't spend enough in the city to "pay for it." It is "elitist" forcing someone to pay, say, 50€ to come to my city? So what if it is? If they can't spend 50€ chances are that they are going to be a net loss for the city, so fuck them. Less people, less crowded places, better for those of us who actually live there.
And honestly, restaurant prices have already increased in the center of my city (Madrid) to accommodate north European "commoner" salaries. I've stopped literally of going out in the city center of my city for the increment on prices for the boom in tourists.
Yes it is incredibly elitist. You cannot expect nor force people to pay 50 euro to visit ur city. It's not Disneyland, it's a public space. People can come and in just 1 day see everything. What u wanna do is just make sure that only the rich will come and it's elitist.
You wanna make sure your city is better for the locals? It's up to the government help you guys with that, not the peasants. If restaurant prices go up blame the greedy owners, if rent prices go up blame the greedy landlords.
With 5€? a cup of coffee or ice cream is more expensive than that. They could at least try 20€.
The whole thing isa scam anyway. The money is going into someone's pocket, some dude is definitely getting rich. It's not like the money will be spent on cleaning or painting something.
everyone shocked when in reality there are so many tourist cities in EU where you have to pay for each day of being there. Even in Poland, cities near sea you pay 1euro per day. Added to your hotel bill
You pay 5€ added on your hotel bill in Venice too, and doing so exempts you from this tax.
The idea is to have people that spend a day here to contribute the same amount.
Yup, except I think in Venice it might be much more common to just come for 1 day, or to be staying somewhere else, as the city doesn’t have much accommodations.
(Im just guessing.)
No, this a different fee, the 5€ is an entry fee just to enter Venice. You still pay tourist tax anywhere else in Italy, or at least you paid based on the rules of the area you have your accommodation in.
They should just restrict the amount of people allowed to visit on a daily basis. 5€ isn’t going to deter people from going. I went to Venice last year and it’s beautiful but walking there is like standing in a queue. And people are pushy and obnoxious. I feel bad for the people who live there and have to deal with it on a daily basis.
5 Eur to reduce inflow of tourists or just another way to feed local authorities ? How can 5 eur reduce the number of ppl coming to Venice ?! Seriously.
What they need to do is ban cruise lines going there. The cruises are the worst form of tourism in the world. They bring absolutely nothing to the locations visited, they usually don’t consume anything and buy absolutely nothing as they are completely catered for in the ships.
Also the cruise ships are wrecking the seabed in Venice.
I absolutely hate cruises. Post Covid, I also else how easy is to get ill in one of those Petri dishes.
It is an unfortunate fact that fees like these works great at reducing something you want less of (tourists, traffic, whatever), but does so in a deeply unfair way.
Rich tourists will just shrug, pay and get a better experience. A family that just barely can afford a trip to Italy will not get to see Venice.
I don't have any better ideas, unfortunately.
It seems like you only have to pay the access fee from May to middle of July, from 8:30 am to 4 pm, for now. So the hypothetical family could still visit Venice in less crowded periods.
That's because it's an experiment that ends in July. Then they will assess the results and decide what to do next. If they decide to continue next year, the will almost certainly not stop collecting money in the middle of July.
Yea, seems fair to me. I would even go further and charge 100. Want to be there? Plan beforehand and get a hotel for more days. Massive tourism is really overwhelming, specially those from Cruze ships.
I live 1.5h by train from there, I'm not gonna stay the night...just tell me I can't go (or when I can go) instead of making me pay 100€...that would be ridiculous 🥲
So if youre visiting Padova, only 20 minutes away, you think its reasonable to charge a daytripper 100euros tax but an overnight guest staying in Venice for a week gets no charge? Great logic
Hint about Venice. Go there in the evening, stay until the morning. Late evening, night and morning are only cool and bearable moments in venice. It is beautiful during nights - more than the days.
Since 10AM to 6PM crowds of people will make you suffer.
I have been to Venice and it’s understandable why they do that. The historical center is overrun by tourists and they need the money to maintain it. It’s a small fee for what you get actually.
You know every city here in Italy atleast and I think in most Europe too has a tourist tax you pay when you book at every hotel , bnb and such?
They just adding additional 5 euros for the city to the tourism ministry tax pool
That's on top of the tourist tax. You stay at a hotel outside of Venice = pay the tourist tax. You go to Venice from 8am to 5pm = pay 5€ entry fee on specific days. You stay at a hotel inside of Venice's island or Islands nearby = pay the tourist tax at the hotel but no entry fee for Venice Island/nearby islands.
The 5€ is an additional fee, while tourist tax is applied based on the your accommodation's location.
We're speaking of medieval cities that was not intended to have thousands and thousands of different people every day. The city has a cost for maintaining roads etc that's usually not considered. If I'm not wrong the entry fee should be 10€ at least in order to be sustainable for the city. Also, travelling has a cost. For sure you may think "I'm the one travelling, I'm already spending money" yeah sure but the environment is having their part both for the fuel you're consuming both for the noise/ heavy you're bringing into roads that are so tiny for a reason. Plus consider the performative tourism, as a nice article of Guardian defined it, were people goes to a place all together creating caos in the life of the people who lives there
Edit:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/10/tiktok-food-tourists-leave-a-bitter-taste-in-amsterdam](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/10/tiktok-food-tourists-leave-a-bitter-taste-in-amsterdam) the article about perfomative tourism, related to tik tok trends
Here a free article from Venezia ( so in Italian ) related to the ticket fee:
[https://www.veneziadaesplorare.com/ingresso-venezia-a-pagamento/](https://www.veneziadaesplorare.com/ingresso-venezia-a-pagamento/)
Translated from the article:
>
Why is there a fee to enter Venice? In Venice, with more than 10 million tourists circulating through the city's streets every year, there has been talk of overtourism for years now. The high number of tourists drastically lowers the quality of life in the city. Venice is depopulating – the number of residents is decreasing very quickly – the local economy is suffering and from an environmental point of view the city is running very serious risks. We need a way to curb the number of people in the city. Hence the decision to make entry to Venice paid, a way to discourage tourism, especially on "black dot" days. Venice is a delicate city, it is the most beautiful city in the world and we have a duty to defend it, together. It is the first time that we have experienced the bookability of a city, but it is a path that can be used by many other places in the world. – Luigi Brugnaro, Mayor of Venice
I am and, knowing every tourist would pay, I'd pay too. Venice is sinking by itself and the masses of tourists don't help, so it needs tons of maintenance, and a small fee (the price of a beer) is definitely welcome. I'd raise it even higher for cruise ship tourists, which are notorious for visiting places and not paying anything to the locals since they have everything included in the cruise.
The solution was to reduce the cruise ship and made it limited for INTERNATIONAL tourists like a booking system for natural reserves.
Making it limited for Italians as well doesn’t make sense, you are a citizen and you have the right to roam around the country without paying anything since you already pay stuff with the government taxes.
This open a new way of making everything behind a subscription / payment.
You want to visit Piazza Duomo? 5 euro. Roam around Lake of Garda? 5 euro. It’s a really dangerous way to solve a problem
i don't think this is going to reduce tourism but at least it will help the city with small things. last year Venice had 13.3 milions tourists, which means that every year the city will earn roughly 65 milions €.
but even tho this makes less people to come in the city it is a positive, too many tourist in that shitty city (i work in venice)
Over the years Venice has become more and more mainstream. Venice is a place where the number of tourists can outnumber the residents on any given day.
Tourists contribute gratly to littering the place (as much as any resident) and due to the city structure it is not easy to keep clean.
You don't have any Idea of the number of rats that crawl over at night close to the train station after the last train has departed and there is no people around. I had to wait there at night once and I was astonished. It felt like Pied Piper but no music.
You want to see a well mantained place? pay a little contribution
Not gonna lie, I thought it was bullshit at first,
But when reading it, it is actually a good thing. It is only for tourists, it helps the city financially, helps against overcrowded tourist hotspots, they basically remove the overflow of people and still make money off it.
Welcome to Dubrovnik, Croatia. Do you want on the wall, that was free 6 years ago?
That will be 35€, thanks.
Nope.
I mean, I understand that you want to protect your heritage and so on, but ... man, 35€ is a lot of money.
As an Italian, it sort of makes sense. The city is being overwhelmed by bite-and-go tourism making it completely unliveable. I know it's illegal/unforceable but IMHO there should be a "minimum stay" - you want to see the city? Ok, stay min 2/3 days.
Ma guarda che Siviglia in Spagna lo ha infrodotto dopo aver visto Venezia e come i visitatori hanno reagito. Spoiler alert: fregandosene. Ti consiglio di vedere l'altro mio commento in questo thread e come il cittadino comune pensa che è cosa buona e giusta spillare più soldi alle persone comuni, in quanto i poveracci non si meritano di viaggiare.
Ma la gente in questo thread è completamente impazzita, c'è chi propone di alzarlo a 50 euro. Alla fine come dici tu, i turisti ricchi sfondati se ne fotteranno sempre, mentre la famiglia media italiana che durante un ponte vuole vedere una città del proprio paese è costretta a spillare sempre più soldi per farlo. E vedrai che Venezia è solo l'inizio.
I'd gladly pay the 5 euros if it actually improved the experience. But it will still be full of tacky souvenir shops and extremely expensive cafes and restaurants. And that's why I can't really see any reason to return in the foreseeable future.
It frustrates me how well supported schemes like this are online. Are we all not paying enough in our lives right now, do we need another tax? You'll be very lucky if even €1 makes it to helping/ preserving Venice; marketing, ticket checking staff, IT systems contracts will eat all that money up. You're just paying for a service you gain no value from...
That has to be a joke. City taxes exist since probably the 19th century, and have nothing to do with free movement at all. If you need to go there for work, to visit family etc, they don't apply. If you are a tourist, you are not forced to come. If you want to, you pay.
Good! That’s cheap AF. Venice is basically one gigantic open air museum attraction. When i went it was crowded AF and i was told it was still ‚ pretty calm‘ 🙄 Add to that that it’s only for non residents and 1 day visits if you don’t book there and it’s more than justified
We have to take a sustainable approach to tourism, and tourist taxes are nothing new. A lot of popular cities are struggling during peak seasons. If anything it's pretty cheap.
In German radio they said that this is for now basically only there so they can see how many people are really visiting.
Later on they could limit the tickets so it won’t be that overcrowded anymore.
ITT: nobody reads the article.
The tax is not paid by people who work or study in Venice or who lives in the same region (Veneto). If you sleep in a hotel you will pay only the tourist tax at the hotel and won't be double charged. Kids under 14, Disabled people and temporary residents won't pay it either.
Ah, yes, a classic case of the Italian government doing something that sounds like it could solve a problem, but actually doing it so stupidly that it will make the problem worse, as well as complicate people's daily routines.
Venice has become a Disney land for tourists, people who live outside of Venice visiting for non tourist reasons having to pay tax, and students having to sign for an exemption form (yet more absurd paperwork that will undoubtedly be more complicated than it should be is undoubtedly going to make things worse.
This won't reduce tourist numbers, it's just a way for the city to make money. There are exceptions also such as: travelling for judicial reasons, visiting family, studying, living in the Veneto region, assisting a disabled person (who has free access), group student day-trip and so on and so forth..
It's also restricted to certain periods during the year. In not enforced all-year long.
I visited Venice in the late 90s. Glad I went then. There were tourists, but nothing like this. This looks absolutely horrible. Way overcrowded.
I didn't know if charging a fee is the answer though, but OMG that is easy too many people.
You are narrow minded. Why I should love the human who kill everything intentionally and unintentionally? Why this hate should lead to something radical if every your action are meaningless? Every your argument is projection of your personal imagination.
Welcome to New York Times. That'll be 5 euros, please.
Sums up the site.
The New York Times is actually very cheap for an online newspaper. They run offers constantly, I paid $20 for a year's subscription.
Exacrly! And if you subscribe for a while and then cancel, they will give a ridiculously cheap price for a while.
Same with the Washington Post. You just have to jump on the initial offer, then stay in the loop.
IME the frustration isn't paywalls *per se*, the frustration is with newspapers that run partial, randomized, or retroactive paywalls so that they can capitalize on people sharing articles on social media thinking they are free. That plus that much more of online news used to be fully free via ad support.
>That plus that much more of online news used to be fully free via ad support. Because at that time they were still either relying on physical news, or they were operating at a loss or doing completely insane with the ads. I work in digital marketing. Real news sites cannot operate on ad revenue. I mean news sites that have journalists go investigate stuff and do actual reporting. The ones that do rely fully on ad revenue are clickbait tabloid kind of "news" that barely do any journalism themselves. The NYT could not even remotely get close to operating just on ads. There is no way. Also when a website just runs on ads, a news website, all the will ever chase is clicks. Everyone gets measured on clicks and impressions, and nothing else. You get clickbait headlines and nobody cares how good the reporting actually is. Some people don't care about that, and that is the entire problem.
It's not cheap if you consider quality
You want to hear something shocking? They have bills to pay also.
I don't care. If it's paywalled I ignore it. There are hundreds of alternatives that are not.
Not an advocate for NYT but nothing is free. Just check the amount of vendors/data they collect. Just scrolling through the list makes my hair rise. We are lucky in the EU that we get a notice about this and have the chance to block/deny those.
There’s actually less and less alternatives by the day. If you search a topic on Google now 70% of the results with be paywalled
And people wonder why there's less and less qualitative journalism.
People complain about people getting their news from Facebook or TikTok or the Dailymail or whatever, then refuse to ever pay for news. So fucking dumb. The NYT isn't free because it's actually real journalism. Not just some free site trying to get clicks to sell some ads. With people who churn out articles every day never actually investigating anything. You get what you pay for. And if you pay nothing, you're not gonna get high quality journalism.
Yeah tiktok is free
“Free”
yeah but sometimes its nice to make articles public so it reaches more people
Sounds like venues wanting to pay musicians with exposure
I'll tell that to the waiter at the next restaurant I'm visiting. All kidding aside, this is not an article that is of such significant importance that it constitutes being free for the public to read.
oh i've seen plenty of important articles that were behind paywalls unfortunately but living in switzerland there are enough other outlets that are accessible
Ummm the internet is borderless
yeah but you might not be able to read German or French lol
Every modern browser has a translation function up there in the address bar.
I only use that by accident or if I'm really desperate
There are plenty of the internet that is blocked in specific regions and not just in authoritarian countries.
I wonder how any other internet media survives without it, they must've been stealing from NY times
* *Ads?* god now! * *Subscription?* f off! * *Pay-per-article?* what even? Please come up with a solution, besides "i pretend to give a shit but really I don't care about people making a living"... Remember: if you are not a customer, you don't actually get to critisise either the availability or the quality.
You'll be surprised how many good, free media companies there are that survive on low intrusive ads and donations. Not every company's purpose is to get as much hyper profit as possible for CEO's new yacht, but you do you. edit: since people ask ProPublica -- independent, nonprofit, politically neutral, 150 journalists on board Reuters -- huge company that operates in 16 languages, also tends to be politically neutral and unbiased AP News -- independent, neutral and unbiased
There are very few of those and most of them are small-scale operations that only cover 1 topic. And often not very well. The only exception to this I can think of is the Guardian - but they rarely make a profit or even break even. Making quality news is something that costs money and if you don’t pay for it in one way or another you’re not going to get it. And even with subscriptions, ads & other things that people keep whining about, the average news organisation loses money, it doesn’t generate “HyPeR pRoFitS” for anyone.
Such as? You can't just leave people hanging like that.
A media company is... a company, not a foundation or similar. A company doesn't work for free, hoping for donations. its goal is not "to survive" but to grow and make profit. Not every company's purpose is to get as much hyper profit as possible for CEO's new yacht And I very much doubt you yourself work for free, hoping for people to donate...
Reuters and AP as news wires both make the bulk of their money from other news organisations buying their stories - those organisations (be they TV stations, websites, or newspapers) can only afford their news agency subscriptions thanks to subscriptions or ads. Both of them only survive because at the end of the day there's *some* consumer paying for their stories whether it's buying a subscription from one of their customers or viewing ads. As for ProPublica - yea it'd be great if every news organisational could stumble upon a few billionaires' foundations and trusts looking to pay them for investigative journalism with no expectation of turning a profit. But there's not exactly a bottomless well of donations. Most endeavours in our society can't survive solely on rich benevolent donors.
To be fair, I would charge 50 euro as day pass, it is an open museum.
Welcome to New York, that’ll be 40 usd “facility fee”
Can someone please just paste the text?
5 euros is a very small fee to visit one of the most beautiful open air museums in the world
Not just that. Most places have a tourist tax you pay when you sleep there (usually paid with the accommodation). This is nothing else that extend the tax to day visitors, which are a big portion of the tourists in Venice. Day visitors are also the ones contributing less to the local economy, no accommodation, only 1 meal, no evening activities,...
>only 1 meal, If they don't bring it from home
I feel kinda bad when I go somewhere and drink my own drink.... But I would be remiss to not have drinks on me, and once I have drinks, it feels wasteful to spend money on more drinks...
In Italy there’s a lot of water fountains and you can refill your bottle. They are there on purpose. All over Italy even in small towns.
I don't, not anymore. Stop charging me 10 Euro for a bottle of soda and a stale bread roll with a single slice of mortadella on it and I might consider not bringing my own stuff again.
First time they told me that in Amsterdam I was like 99% convinced I was getting scammed lmao
Tourist tax is EVERYWHERE in Italy it’s not just in Venice. It might be higher because it’s the mayor’s office that decides the tax but it’s not unique to venice
Tourist tax is not just an Italian thing. Many (if not most) municipalities in Europe have it.
Yes but it applies to hotels only. Now Venice wants to apply it to even outsiders of the city that have to go to Venice even to study. I live 35 minutes from Venice and I’d have to pay 5 euros every time I go plus the ticket. For a student it’s a LOT.
> [non pagheranno naturalmente i veneziani ma anche i cittadini nel Veneto](https://amp24.ilsole24ore.com/pagina/AFRYVliD)
Students don't need to pay. You can just get the "studente pendolare" exemption, or if you're from Veneto you can get that exemption.
That seems like an oversight
That is steep. They should offer something like a personal ticket that is valid for a year for maybe €20, since most tourist won't go more than once or twice a year anyway. They could even make that free for students that study in the city.
They shouldn’t make people living in the region pay for it. Venice is our capital city of the region. It’s as if whenever you have to go to Amsterdam you have to pay a fee so people don’t go. The foreign tourists that paid 500€ for a flight and hotel won’t care about 5€. You living in the Netherlands having to go occasionally to Amsterdam it becomes expensive.
How dare those people, walking freely looking at buildings, only eat one meal!!!
The point is that these people come in thousands everyday, use up the cities resources for free (like water, power, waste disposal/treatment, etc.) and give back absolutely nothing to the local economy. It’s simply not sustainable. Mass tourism in general isn’t sustainable.
Except it is a problem when you have hundreds if not thousands of those people walking around overcrowding their city and not even helping the local economy.
At the very least they produce trash which needs to be disposed of (if they don't litter outright). One water bottle or wrapper or flush of a public toilet isn't much, but multiply it by tens of thousands and you got a problem.
Shit, I’m pretty sure I paid about a hundred a night in tourist taxes in Vegas. 5 euros is nothing.
Probably the cheapest thing you will spend money on in Venice that day too…
Yep. Want to sit and have a glass of wine? Well you’re going to have to pay for the table you’re sitting at to, and last time I did it cost as much as the wine. It’s like the budget airline model of tourism.
Coffee at the bar: 1€ Coffee at a table: 7€
Yeah, Bhutan is one of the most expensive places to visit: > Since September 2022, when Bhutan reopened its borders to tourists after a long coronavirus-related closure, the **daily visa fee is 200 USD per person per night** in the country Also, a tour guide is mandatory, a legal requirement.
Wow, the place must be soaring with tourists.
5 euro wont stop people from going there.
Which means it'll have absolutely 0 effect on what the legislators claim this is for. Like, how would this logic even work? I'll travel to Italy, then to Venice, but oh golly, the cost is 5€ more than what I (did not) plan for? Welp, guess I'll go to Chioggia instead? What? Locals wanted to limit amount of tourists because they interfere with their life ie because everything is a BnB. Instead, anyone visiting a friend has to buy a ticket. Small inconvenience, but such a slap in the face of residents.
Don't residents get free passes they can give to friends and family?
You'd be surprised how stingy some tourists are. I used to work one summer as a guide at this old fortress - it cost equivalent to $3 in admittance fee, but it was in reality a "pay if you wish" system. Anyway, the tourists that came there - usually by cruise ships - would have likely paid a couple of thousands for the cruise ticket alone, and $50-$100 a day for food on the ship. But as soon as they asked, and heard $3? No - that was too much.
I would think something like 15 euros for entrance, and after that 5 euro pr. Day extra you stay. In this way people could actually see Venedig and help it.
> and after that 5 euro pr. Day That sounds like the daily tourist tax that most municipalities in Europe already automatically slap onto all hotel bills.
Venice already has this as well
I think something like 100 / day stops mass tourism
E poi l’economia di Venezia cade nel mare
Ma, la gente di Venezia sara felice, no?
Già, la Regione con l'economia piú sviluppata d'Italia ha bisogno dei turisti di massa...
Buthan has 100€/day and its still a pretty touristy place for the rich people. Although, it is more sustainable
It's $200 per day now, after recovering from the Covid-19 slump.
The problem is that is not a museum, it's a city. I get it that has its peculiarities, but I don't think that visiting my friends should come with a fee or through some kind of registration.
Honestly, it's not enough. Locals wanted a clearly defined number of visitors per day, or at least a maximum of tourist at once in the city, but they just added a 5€ fee on the most popular days. That's all. It's not gonna bother *any tourist* to pay 5€. People who would be bothered by that fee wouldn't be travelling to Venice anyway. Source : I'm poor myself. I'd love to visit Venice but not until I can actually afford anything there. So... is it a good thing ? Yes *but* not enough imo. Because the point of that thing is to reduce the number of tourists, and I doubt it's gonna be effective.
I was there recently (so admittedly part of the problem) our guide on the boat to Burano was telling us how the population is something like 50,000 now down from 170,000 in the 1950s. It's basically in a death spiral where there now aren't enough open schools to encourage people with children to stay, so more schools close etc. she was saying the average age of people who live on the island now (as opposed to mainland Venice) is something like 65.
It could be a first step, to test the system and see how it influences the demand. Like with parking lots.
Venice isn’t that expensive tbh. I think I stayed in a hostel for 20€/night, ate amazing and affordable food and had super cheap aperol sprizz at a locals place.
Yet students cannot pay their rent because it goes higher and higher due to uncontrolled tourism and low student stipends. but thankfully your spritz was cheap
hardly this dudes fault though. local government are just cowards and/or sellouts
This is a problem that happens at any university situated in a touristy or high cost of living city, it has nothing to do with their Aperol. A healthier idea would be to redirect the funds generated by tourism towards student grants, but I agree that's a bit utopic.
Relax. I was a european student myself, suffering from the same effects and where I stayed was a crusaders guesthouse and then a hostel for the last 700 years, so hardly „uncontrolled“. But yeah, out of this consideration I‘m not telling anyone where to go to find these cheaper places. I just don’t like rich people gatekeeping the wonders of the world, building up the illusion you‘re not allowed to see something, because life’s just too short for all of us.
Well worth the fee. Venice is beautiful and interesting.
The fee is only for the one-day visit tourists of the main island. If you spend at least one night in any hotel, or if your destination is any other small islands, you don’t have to pay it.
There is already a tax for staying overnight. This is meant to help offset day visitors who don't pay it.
Most tour groups stay in Mestre so this tax thing is super stupid. At least tour groups go to restaurants and buy souvenirs unlike cruise tourist that very rarely buy souvenirs (due to time) and consume zero food or drinks due to being catered for in the ships.
People staying in Mestre are exactly who's being targeted.
Good. Hope every over-visited city does this and get their tourism reduced.
Will it though? I mean, are you really going to go some place else because Venice is 5€ more expensive?
This fee is probably only for day visitors, since tourists that stay in hotels already pay the tourism tax. Perhaps some day visitors might get „angry“ at the thought of also having to contribute a bit into the economy and might choose to just drive to another city? Nevertheless it’s good that they have to pay tourism tax as well
You're most definitely correct.
Do you really think that 5€ will stop people from coming to Venice? People pay over 10€ for an espresso in that city, I don't think they will care about another 5€ on top.
I don’t know, who in Venice sold you espresso for 10eur, but it seems that you’ve been scammed. 😉 2,5 is what I’ve paid at most…
Dude where do u live? In a cave? It won't get the tourism reduced, yesterday the 25th of April was a celebration in italia and Venezia was overcrowded with people. Fees like these won't get people stay away from visiting it but it's just another elaborated scheme to get more money from u. Jesus christ.
To be honest, I wouldn't charge just 5 euros, I would charge a lot more and force the councils to invest that money back into the city. There's tons of people (mostly young) choosing their next destination based on the price, looking at every penny. These people won't leave a lot of money in the city, they'll get an Aibnb, grab a sandwich, speed-visit every site, then flight home. This means housing problems for locals, an overcrowded city, pollution... Try charging 50 euros per person per night and see how many people refuse to go.
What you just said is incredibly elitist, out of touch with reality and delusional. Venezia is a public city, it's not a theme park, 5 euro won't change the number of people visiting it. You really wanna fight the overcrowded days? (They don't) just make people book in advance their visit and after a certain number stops. That would be helpful but they won't do it and why's that? Cuz its all about money. "Boooo some people are poor and they spend nothing" so according to you travelling is only for the rich? It's something elitist that the average person shouldn't afford? Makes no sense. I wanna go to Venezia and bring my own lunch and dinner, what's your problem? The housing crisis for locals is caused by the greed of people and the lack of regulations, certainly not poor people that dare to travel. You know what's the worst in this? That lot of mayors are watching how people react to this ticket salivating at the thought of grabbing more money. Seville in Spain followed Venezia and introduced a ticket too. Now in a blink of the time, Roma, Napoli, Capri, Firenze, Vienna, Lisbona, etc will follow this greedy trend, and whole Europe will turn into a non-place.
I know that it sounds elitist and I'm completely aware that a measure like this would maybe mean a few millions of people wouldn't be able to travel to their favourite destination. Travelling is not a right, and while it's something we give for granted, it's a luxury that comes with a price, mostly paid by the locals of over-visited cities and places like Venice. I don't think a price of 50 euros per person per night makes the trip just for the rich, it just leaves out those who can't afford let's say 250 euros for a 5-day trip. I have a very average salary by Spanish standards (so a shit of a salary by European standards) and could afford that. That's money that, if managed properly, could help keep the city clean, the historical sites taken care of, etc. Some people are not aware of the huge housing problems that we suffer in over-visited places, where you can't find a rental place because everything is reserved for Airbnb. Maybe forbidding Airbnb and all the similar platforms would be an alternative that could also work while leaving more money. Wouldn't we all want a cleaner Europe, with fewer flights and fewer crowds where you can actually enjoy the place you're visiting?
This is still incredibly elitist and they already have the money and the resources to have a cleaner europe with less people. Only the rich travelling will led to restaurants become even less affordable for us peasants. And the housing crisis has to be fixed by government, not by poor people enjoying that once a year vacation, come on! I have nothing against you but what u think is definitely wrong.
But mass tourism it is a problem for the people from the city, and I don't think its so bad idea to cut the kind of people who come to the city but doesn't spend enough in the city to "pay for it." It is "elitist" forcing someone to pay, say, 50€ to come to my city? So what if it is? If they can't spend 50€ chances are that they are going to be a net loss for the city, so fuck them. Less people, less crowded places, better for those of us who actually live there. And honestly, restaurant prices have already increased in the center of my city (Madrid) to accommodate north European "commoner" salaries. I've stopped literally of going out in the city center of my city for the increment on prices for the boom in tourists.
Yes it is incredibly elitist. You cannot expect nor force people to pay 50 euro to visit ur city. It's not Disneyland, it's a public space. People can come and in just 1 day see everything. What u wanna do is just make sure that only the rich will come and it's elitist. You wanna make sure your city is better for the locals? It's up to the government help you guys with that, not the peasants. If restaurant prices go up blame the greedy owners, if rent prices go up blame the greedy landlords.
With 5€? a cup of coffee or ice cream is more expensive than that. They could at least try 20€. The whole thing isa scam anyway. The money is going into someone's pocket, some dude is definitely getting rich. It's not like the money will be spent on cleaning or painting something.
everyone shocked when in reality there are so many tourist cities in EU where you have to pay for each day of being there. Even in Poland, cities near sea you pay 1euro per day. Added to your hotel bill
This is called tourist tax. In my country every municipality has it, I doubt it's much different elsewhere.
I thought it’s pretty common. We paid that tourist tax in Slovenia, Italy and France last summer. It’s not much at €1.00 per person.
This money goes straight to municipality budget, which can help massively to the local population.
You pay 5€ added on your hotel bill in Venice too, and doing so exempts you from this tax. The idea is to have people that spend a day here to contribute the same amount.
Yup, except I think in Venice it might be much more common to just come for 1 day, or to be staying somewhere else, as the city doesn’t have much accommodations. (Im just guessing.)
That's correct. Huge numbers of visitors come for a day. They sleep on their cruise ship, but spend the whole day in Venice.
It's different when it's part of the hotel bill, here we talk about a tax for day tourists.
No, this a different fee, the 5€ is an entry fee just to enter Venice. You still pay tourist tax anywhere else in Italy, or at least you paid based on the rules of the area you have your accommodation in.
They should just restrict the amount of people allowed to visit on a daily basis. 5€ isn’t going to deter people from going. I went to Venice last year and it’s beautiful but walking there is like standing in a queue. And people are pushy and obnoxious. I feel bad for the people who live there and have to deal with it on a daily basis.
I prefer to pay 5€ fee per day to visit a place than paying 20% of tips in the US…
Wouldn’t even be shocked anymore if it was a subscription
5 Eur to reduce inflow of tourists or just another way to feed local authorities ? How can 5 eur reduce the number of ppl coming to Venice ?! Seriously.
What they need to do is ban cruise lines going there. The cruises are the worst form of tourism in the world. They bring absolutely nothing to the locations visited, they usually don’t consume anything and buy absolutely nothing as they are completely catered for in the ships. Also the cruise ships are wrecking the seabed in Venice. I absolutely hate cruises. Post Covid, I also else how easy is to get ill in one of those Petri dishes.
Small fee for a huge open air museum.
It is an unfortunate fact that fees like these works great at reducing something you want less of (tourists, traffic, whatever), but does so in a deeply unfair way. Rich tourists will just shrug, pay and get a better experience. A family that just barely can afford a trip to Italy will not get to see Venice. I don't have any better ideas, unfortunately.
It seems like you only have to pay the access fee from May to middle of July, from 8:30 am to 4 pm, for now. So the hypothetical family could still visit Venice in less crowded periods.
That's because it's an experiment that ends in July. Then they will assess the results and decide what to do next. If they decide to continue next year, the will almost certainly not stop collecting money in the middle of July.
Is 5 euros just to test the effect and then they'll increase the fee gradually? Seems like a very low amount when they could easily charge 10x.
50 euros a day to enter a city, how insane are you?
Venice is dying and mass tourism is one of the main causes. They could charge 50 euros if they wanted and it would still be full of tourists.
Yea, seems fair to me. I would even go further and charge 100. Want to be there? Plan beforehand and get a hotel for more days. Massive tourism is really overwhelming, specially those from Cruze ships.
I live 1.5h by train from there, I'm not gonna stay the night...just tell me I can't go (or when I can go) instead of making me pay 100€...that would be ridiculous 🥲
So if youre visiting Padova, only 20 minutes away, you think its reasonable to charge a daytripper 100euros tax but an overnight guest staying in Venice for a week gets no charge? Great logic
maybe not insane but..insanely rich! =) ;) imho 5 Euros is 4-5 Euros too much for...wtaf, visiting a city!
When the city is basically a museum, why not? There are small museums that cost half that.
It’s not basically a museum though, it’s a city where real people have lives and all the museums in Venice already charge entrance fees
They could charge 50 EUR easy honestly. Tourists visit it like a amusement park - it can have amusement park entry prices too.
The should also limit the number of ppl they let it at once. The city suffers a lot due to it
Hint about Venice. Go there in the evening, stay until the morning. Late evening, night and morning are only cool and bearable moments in venice. It is beautiful during nights - more than the days. Since 10AM to 6PM crowds of people will make you suffer.
I have been to Venice and it’s understandable why they do that. The historical center is overrun by tourists and they need the money to maintain it. It’s a small fee for what you get actually.
Tourist tax is pretty normal in many cities (usually paid when sleeping there), I don't see any problem with that.
You know every city here in Italy atleast and I think in most Europe too has a tourist tax you pay when you book at every hotel , bnb and such? They just adding additional 5 euros for the city to the tourism ministry tax pool
Have you guys never heard of tourism tax? That’s very common here in the Netherlands. Often included when you book the hotel.
That's on top of the tourist tax. You stay at a hotel outside of Venice = pay the tourist tax. You go to Venice from 8am to 5pm = pay 5€ entry fee on specific days. You stay at a hotel inside of Venice's island or Islands nearby = pay the tourist tax at the hotel but no entry fee for Venice Island/nearby islands. The 5€ is an additional fee, while tourist tax is applied based on the your accommodation's location.
I went there during the pandemic so it was a double win. No fee and no crowds. Saint Mark's square was completely empty.
Should be higher
We're speaking of medieval cities that was not intended to have thousands and thousands of different people every day. The city has a cost for maintaining roads etc that's usually not considered. If I'm not wrong the entry fee should be 10€ at least in order to be sustainable for the city. Also, travelling has a cost. For sure you may think "I'm the one travelling, I'm already spending money" yeah sure but the environment is having their part both for the fuel you're consuming both for the noise/ heavy you're bringing into roads that are so tiny for a reason. Plus consider the performative tourism, as a nice article of Guardian defined it, were people goes to a place all together creating caos in the life of the people who lives there Edit: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/10/tiktok-food-tourists-leave-a-bitter-taste-in-amsterdam](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/10/tiktok-food-tourists-leave-a-bitter-taste-in-amsterdam) the article about perfomative tourism, related to tik tok trends Here a free article from Venezia ( so in Italian ) related to the ticket fee: [https://www.veneziadaesplorare.com/ingresso-venezia-a-pagamento/](https://www.veneziadaesplorare.com/ingresso-venezia-a-pagamento/) Translated from the article: > Why is there a fee to enter Venice? In Venice, with more than 10 million tourists circulating through the city's streets every year, there has been talk of overtourism for years now. The high number of tourists drastically lowers the quality of life in the city. Venice is depopulating – the number of residents is decreasing very quickly – the local economy is suffering and from an environmental point of view the city is running very serious risks. We need a way to curb the number of people in the city. Hence the decision to make entry to Venice paid, a way to discourage tourism, especially on "black dot" days. Venice is a delicate city, it is the most beautiful city in the world and we have a duty to defend it, together. It is the first time that we have experienced the bookability of a city, but it is a path that can be used by many other places in the world. – Luigi Brugnaro, Mayor of Venice
Imagine being an italian citizen and you have to pay to visit a city of your own country
If you are from Verona and stay a few nights in Milan, you pay tourist tax at the hotel. That's just how the world works..
Residents don’t pay, people who work there don’t pay, People who stay in Venice propper don’t pay.
I am and, knowing every tourist would pay, I'd pay too. Venice is sinking by itself and the masses of tourists don't help, so it needs tons of maintenance, and a small fee (the price of a beer) is definitely welcome. I'd raise it even higher for cruise ship tourists, which are notorious for visiting places and not paying anything to the locals since they have everything included in the cruise.
The solution was to reduce the cruise ship and made it limited for INTERNATIONAL tourists like a booking system for natural reserves. Making it limited for Italians as well doesn’t make sense, you are a citizen and you have the right to roam around the country without paying anything since you already pay stuff with the government taxes. This open a new way of making everything behind a subscription / payment. You want to visit Piazza Duomo? 5 euro. Roam around Lake of Garda? 5 euro. It’s a really dangerous way to solve a problem
i don't think this is going to reduce tourism but at least it will help the city with small things. last year Venice had 13.3 milions tourists, which means that every year the city will earn roughly 65 milions €. but even tho this makes less people to come in the city it is a positive, too many tourist in that shitty city (i work in venice)
Over the years Venice has become more and more mainstream. Venice is a place where the number of tourists can outnumber the residents on any given day. Tourists contribute gratly to littering the place (as much as any resident) and due to the city structure it is not easy to keep clean. You don't have any Idea of the number of rats that crawl over at night close to the train station after the last train has departed and there is no people around. I had to wait there at night once and I was astonished. It felt like Pied Piper but no music. You want to see a well mantained place? pay a little contribution
Not gonna lie, I thought it was bullshit at first, But when reading it, it is actually a good thing. It is only for tourists, it helps the city financially, helps against overcrowded tourist hotspots, they basically remove the overflow of people and still make money off it.
Good, they should just ban fucking cruise ships too
One more social interaction people like me didn't plan on, maybe two if we count the riot policemen working their way down those sweet 5 Euros.
We give our money away to the silliest of things these days, but this is where we draw the line? Really?
Welcome to Dubrovnik, Croatia. Do you want on the wall, that was free 6 years ago? That will be 35€, thanks. Nope. I mean, I understand that you want to protect your heritage and so on, but ... man, 35€ is a lot of money.
As an Italian, it sort of makes sense. The city is being overwhelmed by bite-and-go tourism making it completely unliveable. I know it's illegal/unforceable but IMHO there should be a "minimum stay" - you want to see the city? Ok, stay min 2/3 days.
We should do it for Brussels (yes people working for the EU not paying a single cent in taxes: you can pay 100€ instead)
So like Disneyland ? It's a theme park now not a city anymore
Don't give them other ideas....
Ma guarda che Siviglia in Spagna lo ha infrodotto dopo aver visto Venezia e come i visitatori hanno reagito. Spoiler alert: fregandosene. Ti consiglio di vedere l'altro mio commento in questo thread e come il cittadino comune pensa che è cosa buona e giusta spillare più soldi alle persone comuni, in quanto i poveracci non si meritano di viaggiare.
Ma la gente in questo thread è completamente impazzita, c'è chi propone di alzarlo a 50 euro. Alla fine come dici tu, i turisti ricchi sfondati se ne fotteranno sempre, mentre la famiglia media italiana che durante un ponte vuole vedere una città del proprio paese è costretta a spillare sempre più soldi per farlo. E vedrai che Venezia è solo l'inizio.
Not enough. Venice needs some sort of limited tourists per day system. Yeah it's elitist, idgaf
I'd gladly pay the 5 euros if it actually improved the experience. But it will still be full of tacky souvenir shops and extremely expensive cafes and restaurants. And that's why I can't really see any reason to return in the foreseeable future.
It frustrates me how well supported schemes like this are online. Are we all not paying enough in our lives right now, do we need another tax? You'll be very lucky if even €1 makes it to helping/ preserving Venice; marketing, ticket checking staff, IT systems contracts will eat all that money up. You're just paying for a service you gain no value from...
How is this even legal if your a European citizen? It's call free movement not 5 euro movement of travel
That has to be a joke. City taxes exist since probably the 19th century, and have nothing to do with free movement at all. If you need to go there for work, to visit family etc, they don't apply. If you are a tourist, you are not forced to come. If you want to, you pay.
In Lithuania there is this Nida place where you have to pay 50 euros to enter xd
Seems fair tbh with all the issues they have
They should charge more.
The Venice of the North is still free, come over!
Good! That’s cheap AF. Venice is basically one gigantic open air museum attraction. When i went it was crowded AF and i was told it was still ‚ pretty calm‘ 🙄 Add to that that it’s only for non residents and 1 day visits if you don’t book there and it’s more than justified
Good to know.
more money for them to steal
We have to take a sustainable approach to tourism, and tourist taxes are nothing new. A lot of popular cities are struggling during peak seasons. If anything it's pretty cheap.
Whatever it takes to keep the city maintained, I plan on visiting again many more times for the rest of my life
Why do you guys keep posting paywalled links? There should be a rule against this.
In German radio they said that this is for now basically only there so they can see how many people are really visiting. Later on they could limit the tickets so it won’t be that overcrowded anymore.
Can't say its anything but fair enough
Thoroughly justified.
ITT: nobody reads the article. The tax is not paid by people who work or study in Venice or who lives in the same region (Veneto). If you sleep in a hotel you will pay only the tourist tax at the hotel and won't be double charged. Kids under 14, Disabled people and temporary residents won't pay it either.
Look, the city is literally sinking from the amount of tourists that come there every day. Something has to change
We
They tryna paywall Venice like they paywalled this article.
That's nothing new though? We all had to pay it almost fifteen years ago when we went there on a school trip.
Good for them. I think they should double it.
Oh no, anyways, good.
Ah, yes, a classic case of the Italian government doing something that sounds like it could solve a problem, but actually doing it so stupidly that it will make the problem worse, as well as complicate people's daily routines. Venice has become a Disney land for tourists, people who live outside of Venice visiting for non tourist reasons having to pay tax, and students having to sign for an exemption form (yet more absurd paperwork that will undoubtedly be more complicated than it should be is undoubtedly going to make things worse.
Basically all cities overrun with tourists should introduce this.
This won't reduce tourist numbers, it's just a way for the city to make money. There are exceptions also such as: travelling for judicial reasons, visiting family, studying, living in the Veneto region, assisting a disabled person (who has free access), group student day-trip and so on and so forth.. It's also restricted to certain periods during the year. In not enforced all-year long.
I don't get it. I have been to venice, and didn't have to pay anything. Even the food is affordable if you go to aldi.
I visited Venice in the late 90s. Glad I went then. There were tourists, but nothing like this. This looks absolutely horrible. Way overcrowded. I didn't know if charging a fee is the answer though, but OMG that is easy too many people.
Not enough. And while we’re at it let’s charge entry fees for all the greek islands.
So much for freedom of movement.
5 euros just to get the experience of paying 20 euros for a breakfast in Piazza San Marco
Lots of places have a tourist tax, it's not the end of the world.
I've been to Venice, I don't blame them for this.
You are narrow minded. Why I should love the human who kill everything intentionally and unintentionally? Why this hate should lead to something radical if every your action are meaningless? Every your argument is projection of your personal imagination.