21–30 of 33 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just in Munich the other day - couldn’t even move because there were so many tourists. I think tour groups need to have a hefty fee attached.
Why would anyone be a tourist in Munich? Seems utterly bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably enroute to Neuschwanstein and the old town / shopping is something to do.
Unimaginable to me to be honest. Neuschwanstein is also literally a fake castle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're lying about the goal is what I suppose they meant, and I tend to agree.
> lying about the goal is what I suppose they meant, and I tend to agree You think a city official needed to scrounge up some funding and came up with this, a highly visible and obstructive method, instead of raising it indirectly?
But the main goal was of course to assure whatever they did wouldn't jeopardise tourism as the city's main revenue stream.
5€ is equivalent to a short-term parking fee and won't deter many visitors, except a few that wouldn't have been valuable to the city anyway. It won't make a dent into the actual overtourism problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just in Munich the other day - couldn’t even move because there were so many tourists. I think tour groups need to have a hefty fee attached.
Why would anyone be a tourist in Munich? Seems utterly bizarre.
It’s a beautiful city. I’d love to go back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lying about the goal is what I suppose they meant, and I tend to agree You think a city official needed to scrounge up some funding and came up with this, a highly visible and obstructive method, instead of raising it indirectly?
No. Locals were demanding officials do something against the rampant overtourism, so they needed to act precisely in a highly visible and obstructive way. But the main goal was of course to assure whatever they did wouldn't jeopardise tourism as the city's main revenue stream. 5€ is equivalent to a short-term parking fee and won't deter many visitors, except a few that wouldn't have been valuable to the city anyway.…
The whole point is there are boatloads of tourists who contribute nothing to the local economy.
> 5€ is equivalent to a short-term parking fee and won't deter many visitors, except a few that wouldn't have been valuable to the city anyway
This is a lot of cruise ship visitors to Venice. I agree the rate is set too low. But that’s different from judging the primary motivation as a money grab.
I'd think only something like ten times that amount would deter a significant number of visitors _which is the goal_.
I'd think only something like ten times that amount would deter a significant number of visitors _which is the goal_.
Obviously that's not the goal but just to add an additiional revenue stream for the city while lying the local plebs straight in the face.
https://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/travel/2023/10/09/fed-u...
“The Brits and Germans are the worst, they make our lives hell here,” the pensioner yells, after a group of young tourists fails to move out of the way on the narrow pavement. Her insults are met with cheers from a group of elderly gentleman sitting in a nearby café.
“I spit on the scum from my balcony,” one of them says to the jeers of his friends.
The beef that the young have with tourists is more life-affecting: They get gentrified out of being able to rent or buy housing in the neighborhoods that they grew up in. Either through housing moving to become airbnbs or through rich foreigners buying out houses. The latter relates more to golden visas and digital nomads though. Ah, and yes, 'digital nomad go home' also started to appear as a graffiti as well.
I'd think only something like ten times that amount would deter a significant number of visitors _which is the goal_.
I was just in Munich the other day - couldn’t even move because there were so many tourists. I think tour groups need to have a hefty fee attached.