The following article, Iconic City Taxing Tourism, was first published on The Black Sphere.

There’s a special kind of irony that comes packaged in human suffering, like a gift basket from a nemesis. It’s the irony of a vegan getting food poisoning from a organic kale smoothie, or a climate activist’s private jet idling on the tarmac. But for sheer, unadulterated, architectural chutzpah, nothing quite compares to the city of Venice—a breathtaking monument to man’s ambition, built defiantly atop water, now complaining that the very people who fund its existence are… well, existing on it.

The lagoon is rising, the foundations are crumbling, and the city’s brilliant solution isn’t to stop building on water, but to charge admission to the disaster movie. The popcorn, naturally, is extra.

The Scent of Hypocrisy (And a Lot of Sewage)

Let’s cut to the chase. Venice is a must-see destination in the same way that watching a car crash in slow motion is compelling television. You know you shouldn’t stare, but the spectacle is just too bizarre to ignore.

And here it is. In a move that would make a highway robber blush with its lack of subtlety, the municipal authorities of Venice have officially rolled out a €5 entry fee for day-trippers. That’s right. You can now pay for the privilege of entering a city that is, by its own admission, being loved to death. It’s the world’s first paywall for a physical space, and it sets a terrifying precedent. What’s next? A cover charge for the Grand Canyon? A two-drink minimum to view the Sistine Chapel?

The justification, as it always is, is draped in the language of crisis. The city is a victim of its own success, suffering from the affliction of “overtourism.” This is a wonderfully modern term, isn’t it? It pathologizes success. It turns “Wow, everyone wants to come see our incredible city!” into “We are suffering from a plague of admirers.” It’s a diagnosis that allows bureaucrats to play doctor, prescribing financial leeches to suck the “excess” life out of the patient.

The city which may be the first to charge a tourism tax is Venice. Most people say that Venice is a must for those traveling in Europe and specifically Italy. Those people lied. Venice is a smelly city that does more damage to itself than tourist could ever do.

I can attest to this firsthand. The city is an olfactory adventure, and not the good kind.

It’s a unique bouquet of stagnant canal water, diesel fumes from the vaporettos, and the faint, ever-present ghost of a million discarded gelato cones. The city is literally sinking into its own waste, a process it has been engaged in for centuries. To blame this on the 30 million tourists who arrive annually is like blaming your house guests for the termite damage you’ve ignored for decades.

A History of Building Castles (and Cities) on Swamps

Let’s provide some context, shall we? The Venetians didn’t just stumble upon a perfectly good city and ruin it. Their ancestors, fleeing invaders in the 5th century, made a conscious, arguably insane decision: “Let’s build a metropolis on 118 small islands in a marshy lagoon. What could possibly go wrong?”

They drove millions of wooden piles into the mud, built atop them, and created one of the most magnificent architectural marvels in human history. It was a stunning act of defiance against nature. But nature, as it turns out, has a long memory and a vicious streak. The very aquifers they tapped for freshwater are causing the city to subside. Further, in 2019, the city suffered its worst flooding in over 50 years, causing catastrophic damage to its historic basilica and other landmarks.

So the threats are real. But are day-trippers with selfie sticks the primary villain in this story? Or are they a convenient scapegoat?

The city has already taken one major, laudable step: in 2021, it banned massive cruise ships from its historic center. These floating skyscrapers were not only an aesthetic abomination, dwarfing the city’s skyline, but their waves were literally eroding the fragile foundations of the city and polluting the lagoon. This was a genuine move to protect the city’s integrity. UNESCO, which had previously threatened to list Venice as a World Heritage site “in danger” due to poor preservation and the cruise ship issue, applauded the move.

So, we’ve established that the gargantuan, pollution-spewing ships are bad. They’re gone. Problem solved? Not quite.

The Real Sinking Feeling: A Economy Built on Sand (or Water)

Last time I checked whether you visit for a bit or stay overnight, you likely contribute to the economy of the place you visit… The fact is that Venice sees potential revenue in all those ships embarking there, and the millions of “day-trippers”.

This is the crux of the breathtaking hypocrisy. Venice’s economy is almost entirely dependent on tourism. The merchants, gondoliers, hoteliers, and restaurateurs—the actual lifeblood of the city—rely on the constant influx of visitors. A day-tripper eats a pizza, has a few drinks, and buys a boat tour. That’s money in the pocket of a Venetian. So the city’s solution to being overwhelmed by its primary economic engine is to… tax that engine? It’s like a farmer taxing the sun for making his crops grow too much.

I’d wager the merchants don’t feel the same as the bureaucrats. For every local complaining about the crowds on the Rialto Bridge, there’s a shop owner whose livelihood depends on those crowds. The €5 fee isn’t a solution; it’s a wealth transfer. It takes money from tourists and gives it directly to the city’s bureaucracy, the very same entity that has, for centuries, failed to solve the fundamental problems of well, building a city on water. It’s a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, and the city is charging you for the application.

The councilor of tourism said the fee aims to “find a new balance” and that Venice was “setting [itself] up as global frontrunners.”

Global front-runners in what? Monetizing failure? They are pioneering a model where instead of innovating or investing in sustainable, long-term infrastructure (like the oft-delayed and corruption-plagued MOSE flood barrier system), cities can just declare themselves victims and install a toll booth. It’s a chilling precedent. Imagine Paris, suffocating under tourism, charging an entry fee at the périphérique. Or Barcelona taxing anyone who isn’t a resident of Catalonia. This isn’t management; it’s surrender dressed up as policy.

The Lagoon of the Absurd

So what’s the real problem? Is it tourism? The cruise ships? The climate? Or is it, as I posited earlier, the foundational absurdity that you built a city in water?!

The answer is: all of the above. But charging a entry fee is the easiest, most politically expedient, and least effective solution on the list. It allows the authorities to look like they’re “doing something” without actually addressing the Herculean tasks of modernizing infrastructure, managing water levels, and creating a diversified economy that doesn’t put all its eggs in a rapidly sinking basket.

Venice is a museum. But unlike the Louvre or the Met, it’s a museum people actually live in. The tension is undeniable. But the solution isn’t to turn the entire city into a ticketed exhibit. It’s to manage the flow intelligently, invest in resilience, and accept that the price of living in a world wonder is, occasionally, having to share it with the world that paid to see it.

The leftist playbook is simple: identify a crisis, blame human activity, and then tax that activity. Venice is just the latest canvas for this tired painting. They built a city on water, and now they’re shocked—shocked!—that it’s wet. And they want you to pay for the towel.

For more takes that hit harder than a magnitude 10 earthquake, follow me at TheBlackSphere.net

Continue reading Iconic City Taxing Tourism …