> The view implicitly underpinning "Venice for the Venetians" is "One of this handful of sophisticated upper-middle-class Europeans is morally worth far more than dozens or hundreds of boorish tourists"
Not at all, this is an oversimplification trying to equate and analyse a social issue in purely economical terms, which is inhumane and unempathetic.
A place like Venice, or Lisbon, or Barcelona, so on and so forth, are only desirable exactly due to generations of people who lived there and built them up. You are trying to force a pure economical view on this issue which I completely disagree with. It's not that morally the residents of Venice are worth far more than tourists, it's that these places only became somewhere tourists would go due to the collective effort of generations of people who are now being forced out so some tourists can pass by, consume and part away with their money after a week. Leaving nothing else in its wake.
Also, the people being pushed out are not the "upper-middle-class Europeans", those have the means to afford living in the city for longer than the poorer ones who are pushed out first, those poorer ones might be elderly, or low-income workers (such as is in Lisbon the past 5-8 years, and Barcelona maybe for longer) who might have been born and lived in those places until a rich landlord purchased a bunch of flats to rent out for 3-5 months of the year on AirBnB and make a buck. You destroy local communities to allow what? Some economical activity due to tourism and enrichment of a wealthy class.
Yes, morally I believe that's wrong, you are min-maxing the return in purely economical terms to a class of people who in large part had no hand in creating what they are profiting from, indiscriminately hollowing out cities for pure profit-seeking motive with no regards for the social issues that will be created in 10-20 years for those people who are forced out just due to a lack of regulation of AirBnBs.
The issue is not boorish tourists, the issue is allowing the rental market be completely distorted in favour of short-term rentals for a tourism industry that exists solely due to the generational work of whomever built those communities and cities, and who actually live there, day in and day out.
If you don't believe this is fucked up I feel we have very different moral compasses...
> only desirable exactly due to generations of people who lived there and built them up.
Disagree. Much of what makes these cities so desirable was built on the backs of vast numbers of poor peasants in the surrounding countryside, or looted from foreign lands, or generated by travelling merchants, or built by people who were expelled from that city between then and now.
And even if someone does happen to be descended from some distant ancestor who contributed something to creating a place, well, so what? Just as no-one should be punished for the crimes of their ancestors, no-one is entitled to be treated better than others just because their ancestors did something good.
Not at all, this is an oversimplification trying to equate and analyse a social issue in purely economical terms, which is inhumane and unempathetic.
A place like Venice, or Lisbon, or Barcelona, so on and so forth, are only desirable exactly due to generations of people who lived there and built them up. You are trying to force a pure economical view on this issue which I completely disagree with. It's not that morally the residents of Venice are worth far more than tourists, it's that these places only became somewhere tourists would go due to the collective effort of generations of people who are now being forced out so some tourists can pass by, consume and part away with their money after a week. Leaving nothing else in its wake.
Also, the people being pushed out are not the "upper-middle-class Europeans", those have the means to afford living in the city for longer than the poorer ones who are pushed out first, those poorer ones might be elderly, or low-income workers (such as is in Lisbon the past 5-8 years, and Barcelona maybe for longer) who might have been born and lived in those places until a rich landlord purchased a bunch of flats to rent out for 3-5 months of the year on AirBnB and make a buck. You destroy local communities to allow what? Some economical activity due to tourism and enrichment of a wealthy class.
Yes, morally I believe that's wrong, you are min-maxing the return in purely economical terms to a class of people who in large part had no hand in creating what they are profiting from, indiscriminately hollowing out cities for pure profit-seeking motive with no regards for the social issues that will be created in 10-20 years for those people who are forced out just due to a lack of regulation of AirBnBs.
The issue is not boorish tourists, the issue is allowing the rental market be completely distorted in favour of short-term rentals for a tourism industry that exists solely due to the generational work of whomever built those communities and cities, and who actually live there, day in and day out.
If you don't believe this is fucked up I feel we have very different moral compasses...
reply