Maybe you remember that in April there was an international wave of publicity/curiosity/dread/disbelief at the announcement that the city government — after nine years of dithering — was ready to start a 29-day program that imposed what was vulgarly called an “entrance ticket” on visitors to the city. (The city, attempting elegance, called it a five-euro “contribution for access.”) To lessen the unpleasant connotations, the plan was termed “experimental,” which means that no matter what happened, everything would be fine. That being the nature of experiments. You want to see what happens.
Many, including your correspondent, were perplexed as to what this project was intended to accomplish. Theories abounded. Mayor Luigi Brugnaro said it was to slow the flow of tourists that was swamping the city. I myself doubted it, because if five euros were a sufficient deterrent to a prospective day-tripper, that person should be spending those five euros on food and shelter instead of lollygagging around the most beautiful city in the world.
Also, the ticket was only required on weekends and holidays, from 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM. So the flow could easily shift to other days, and other times of day, too. Finally, there were so many exemptions almost nobody, it seemed, was going to have to pony up. Resident Venetians, Veneto citizens, anybody with a job here, tourists who overnight in hotels/apartments, temporary residents, children under 14, students, persons with disabilities, persons participating in a sports event, persons with medical appointments…You get the idea. My favorite: “Going to visit a friend.” You fill out the exemption request on the city’s website naming some Venetian you met once standing in line at the supermarket cash register, and you’re all set. Not saying it ever happened, I’m just saying it could.
Some more cynical people theorized that this was a cleverly mislabeled method for the city to make some money. Crass! The city denied this, of course, saying that the expenses of administering the program (and staff and other stuff) far outweighed any potential profit. I’m confused. Why is the city pretending to be so bashful about wanting money? We’re already completely accustomed to the tourist tax on overnight visitors. Why wouldn’t there be more fees popping up?
Interestingly, the whole scheme depended on the honor system, which seems like a shaky way either to limit traffic or make money. If you arrived at 7:30 and just walked into the city, there wasn’t a dangerously high probability of being stopped during the day by somebody in uniform asking to see your ticket. It could happen, but as I say, the odds were pretty much on your side.
On the city’s side, however, was the fact that there was no limit to the number of visitors, so simply pull out a crisp crackling fiver and you were in.
100,000 tourists arrived on the first day, and 8,000 paid. I’m no good with numbers, but those didn’t seem to indicate much of a deterrent, much less a slot machine pouring out cash. If the system worked as planned, there should have been fewer visitors and therefore less income. How wrong I was.
Deterrent it clearly was not, and the term cash-flow took on exciting new meaning. The city had estimated that in the 29 days of “limited access” there would be 140,000 paying visitors providing 700,000 euros total income. Yet the numbers up to the last two days revealed that there had been 440,000 paying visitors.
And as for those mournful remarks about how much it cost the city to run the program? The earliest report says that 2.2 million euros came in, three times the projected sum.
So we are all left with a huge question mark hanging over our heads (“we” meaning those who care, which I do not). What was all that?
At the beginning, the mayor stated that the ticket was “the first step to a plan to regulate the access of day-visitors.” In another interview, he said that “Our objective has always been to put a brake on those who come to Venice just for the day.”
So now, faced with the realization that the five-euro ticket hadn’t slowed the traffic at all, but that in some weird way had actually accelerated the situation, what is the next logical step? Already mooted: Raise the price to ten euros! That’ll keep ’em at bay! Or if not, it’ll bring us cataracts of cash. Either way, the city wins!
(Appreciation to Luca Zorloni’s excellent piece in wired.it)
12 Comments
I hoped you’d write about this. Delightful commentary!
If they seriously wanted to reduce numbers (and perhaps increase respectful behavior), the authorities might base entry on successfully passing a Venetian history-and-culture exam (including art, architecture, music, and literature of course, and perhaps a dash of culinary history as well).
Wouldn’t the uproar be fun?
Your suggested plan for reducing numbers could work, I suppose, though you are humorously suggesting it because you know it’s absurd. Reducing numbers is in nobody’s interest. I challenge anybody to find even one owner of a shop, bar, hotel, or restaurant that would want to reduce numbers. The numbers need to be managed differently, and better, but reducing them is a complete non-starter. Behavior, as much as numbers, is what gets everybody mad at tourists. If they were to behave like humans and not like feral goats it would make a huge difference in everybody’s (primarily the residents’) experience of tourism here. Clamping down on pickpockets would also improve the average day in Venice. Everybody here knows what the problems are, but nobody wants to fix them.
Definitely humorous and definitely absurd. By chance of my upbringing (in the Berkshires) and my first career (museums), and location (coastal towns) I’ve lived in tourist-destinations most of my life, so I’ve lived through the transformations and push-pull of overcrowding vs everyday economics. There are visitors I have to forgive a little because I know they are suffering from backache, feetache, headache. And then there are the clueless ones who strike a goofy pose for a selfie in front of a war memorial, or rude ones who drink loud and late and puke in the streets… It’s the ignorant and crude misbehaving that galls. Big sigh here.
Everyone in Venice agrees with you.
What a mess…. Venice is being g ruined a little at a time. So sad.
I have visited many times staying each time for several days to a week. The last visit I brought 3 of my grandchildren and my daughter and son-in-law to my favorite city. I have no problem with the tax included in the hotel bill, Venice is a World Heritage site and I would think the costs are in the millions to try and preserve it. I don’t think the day entry fee will affect the day trippers, they add to the upkeep and those on cruises eat on the ship, they add little to the Venice economy. I think it should be 10 euros to help preserve Venice.
Thank you, I enjoy your posts.
I appreciate your feelings for Venice. Unfortunately, there has been no mention so far of where this money is going to be spent. If they’d spend it on installing lots more trash bins, hiring more trash collectors and adding more shifts throughout the day it would be almost as good as restoring a palace’s facade (oh wait — they’re selling the palaces. Well, you get my point.) If Venice were managed better, it wouldn’t need quite so much preserving.
What IS the point? Brugnaro and his acolytes seems to want to turn Venice into a giant floating hotel anyway, and no one has ever explained where all that (cash only) tourist tax goes anyway.
Prices in Venice are Sky high with a week’s rental accommodation being about the same as a hotel for two on the mainland in the likes of Padova and Treviso as are property prices. So don’t allow any more overseas’ purchases for, say, five years or conversions to rental or hotel accommodation. And make the entry fee €20. When you consider the cost of even a humble traghetto in terms of distance per visitor then €5 is a complete nonsense.
But thanks for another thought provoking, well written story, I really look forward to seeing them in my inbox.
Thanks for the update. Agree that the numbers need to be managed, not reduced.
Elisabetta Povoledo just (July 20) wrote a piece on the subject in the New York Times. Unfortunately I can’t seem to link it in Comments. Toward the end was the interesting disclosure that the mayor is currently under investigation and a city councilman is under arrest for a real estate deal (most likely) unrelated to the “entrance fee.” La vita va avanti.
The “entrance fee” has nothing to do with what’s going on — 4 years of investigation by the Guardia di Finanza has netted 18 persons (city councilors and assorted businessmen) charged with all manner of financial and political skulduggery. One (Renato Boraso) has been arrested, as you say, and shortly thereafter resigned. Of course the mayor is under investigation, in my opinion that was the most predictable part of the whole story.
Again, fantastic and really thoughtful writing. I must admit, I’d wondered how the fee would work – I refuse to carry a “smartphone”, and often wonder where monies raised would go, would it infact really help Venice itself?
Ella B
Everyone wonders where the money will be going. I doubt that it will be revealed to we unwashed masses.