I think that's right, or a visitor tax for day trippers like Venice has been doing. I think the hard part is the redistribution; it's a pretty hard sell to use hotel tax money to pay out residents in the nicest neighborhoods, given they're likely disproportionately high income (or at least have a highly valued home).
I do think that's probably a broader point - places like Barcelona probably have a harsher reaction to tourists because the benefits are distributed widely (via better municipal services that are hard to attribute) or perceived to only be for people in the service industry. Maybe a straight up UBI for residents in tourist hotspots might get more political buy-in?
The owner of the homes and the neighborhood did not create the touristic value. They mostly inherited it. They bought into it when they purchased their home. This is a classic example of pulling up the ladder. They bought because of how charming it was and are then annoyed because visitors who pay state and local taxes also want to experience that neighborhood. This is more like the people who buy near an airport and then want the airport closed because of the noise. If you don’t want the tourists, don’t buy in a touristic area. I estimate 98% of homes are in neighborhoods that never have tourists. Those who complain are trying to drive up the value of their homes after purchase by getting the great neighborhood AND no tourists. No.
Good point on inheritance; based on census data it seems like 85%+ of Monterey homeowners have been in their place for >5 years vs ~60% nationally. The remaining 15% likely recently inherited or are particularly wealthy, given local home prices.
I think your airport analogy is right for the touristy neighborhoods, and it is frustrating when those groups push so hard to stop development. There's actually a political economy angle I could have gone into here: how do you incentivize these neighborhoods to stop obstructing the tourist economy? Or do you even need to incentivize them, vs setting good policy at the city level?
It's been interesting to see the dynamics of tourist pushback across classes and neighborhoods. The anti-tourism protests in cities like Barcelona seem pretty widespread, including in neighborhoods that aren't specifically destinations. I think it hasn't been particularly easy to only tax tourists without it hitting locals (hotel taxes and the new head taxes in places like Venice seem to be the closest, but it seems like it always ends up with higher VATs and other untargeted taxes).
Some cities seem to be incentivizing different types of tourists instead of hitting them generally; anecdotally, I've heard some Barcelonians are specifically trying to drive out British tourists there to party vs families checking out La Sagrada Familia.
Isn’t this what sales and hotel taxes are for?
Overtourism is an externality at the municipal level. Taxation prices that in.
Turning some of the revenue into a rebate for taxpayers completes the incentive loop.
I think that's right, or a visitor tax for day trippers like Venice has been doing. I think the hard part is the redistribution; it's a pretty hard sell to use hotel tax money to pay out residents in the nicest neighborhoods, given they're likely disproportionately high income (or at least have a highly valued home).
I do think that's probably a broader point - places like Barcelona probably have a harsher reaction to tourists because the benefits are distributed widely (via better municipal services that are hard to attribute) or perceived to only be for people in the service industry. Maybe a straight up UBI for residents in tourist hotspots might get more political buy-in?
The owner of the homes and the neighborhood did not create the touristic value. They mostly inherited it. They bought into it when they purchased their home. This is a classic example of pulling up the ladder. They bought because of how charming it was and are then annoyed because visitors who pay state and local taxes also want to experience that neighborhood. This is more like the people who buy near an airport and then want the airport closed because of the noise. If you don’t want the tourists, don’t buy in a touristic area. I estimate 98% of homes are in neighborhoods that never have tourists. Those who complain are trying to drive up the value of their homes after purchase by getting the great neighborhood AND no tourists. No.
Good point on inheritance; based on census data it seems like 85%+ of Monterey homeowners have been in their place for >5 years vs ~60% nationally. The remaining 15% likely recently inherited or are particularly wealthy, given local home prices.
I think your airport analogy is right for the touristy neighborhoods, and it is frustrating when those groups push so hard to stop development. There's actually a political economy angle I could have gone into here: how do you incentivize these neighborhoods to stop obstructing the tourist economy? Or do you even need to incentivize them, vs setting good policy at the city level?
It's been interesting to see the dynamics of tourist pushback across classes and neighborhoods. The anti-tourism protests in cities like Barcelona seem pretty widespread, including in neighborhoods that aren't specifically destinations. I think it hasn't been particularly easy to only tax tourists without it hitting locals (hotel taxes and the new head taxes in places like Venice seem to be the closest, but it seems like it always ends up with higher VATs and other untargeted taxes).
Some cities seem to be incentivizing different types of tourists instead of hitting them generally; anecdotally, I've heard some Barcelonians are specifically trying to drive out British tourists there to party vs families checking out La Sagrada Familia.