Westerners in Tokyo is less that 0.5% of the city's population. Definitely not overrun.

I think the main concern is about the capacity to handle that many tourists. As the population increases and general prosperity increases, amount of tourists will correspondingly increase. There are not that many tourist spots for a given location and causes overrun. There need to be some throttling function. Probably increase the cost/tax, or reduce the visas. Or increase the ability to handle so many tourists. I don't know how this can be done. May be better infrastructure and new places of interests.

How ignorant.

that's probably because some are profiting while others are inconvenienced by it. different experiences are bound to happen.

> A quick Google search confirms tourism is the dominant industry in Venice. The claim that this fuels "little to no financial growth", is therefore first-order backwards.

How much of the money stays in Venice? Just because you handed over cash at a till in a cafe in Venice, doesn't mean a single local sees a lick of that money. They might not even see a lick of the taxes, neither. I've been to Venice... have you? Thanks for Googling about Venice, but try going and speaking to the locals, because I have.

The claim that “tourism has little financial benefits to the local economy in Venice” is debatable and context-dependent. Here's a detailed breakdown addressing both why the claim may be true in some aspects, and why it may be misleading or false in others.

---

Arguments Supporting the Claim:

1. High Leakage of Tourist Revenue

Much of the tourist spending in Venice ends up outside the local economy:

Many hotels, cruise lines, and travel agencies are owned by foreign or non-local entities.

Revenue often flows to large tour operators, not to Venetians themselves.

Day-trippers (especially cruise passengers) spend very little per capita.

2. Overtourism and Cost Externalization

The externalities of mass tourism (e.g. garbage collection, water bus crowding, maintenance of ancient infrastructure) are borne by the municipality and residents, not by tourists.

The economic cost of wear and tear on fragile historical structures is immense and undercompensated.

3. Loss of Local Businesses and Services

Traditional shops and services (bakeries, fishmongers, schools) are being replaced by souvenir shops and Airbnbs, which often serve short-term tourists.

This creates a "hollow economy" where real life becomes unviable for locals.

4. Depopulation and Real Estate Inflation

Real estate is increasingly purchased by investors for short-term rentals, pushing locals out and reducing residential density.

Venice’s population has dropped from ~175,000 in 1950s to under 50,000 today in the historic center.

5. Low Multiplier Effect

Much of the employment created is low-paid, seasonal, precarious, and lacks career development.

Limited reinvestment into the community fabric (education, public health, sustainable infrastructure).

---

Counterarguments (Why Tourism Still Brings Economic Benefit):

1. Tourism Is a Major Employer

A significant portion of Venetian jobs is in hospitality, transport, and retail, all tied to tourism.

Completely removing tourism would collapse the current local job market.

2. Tax Revenues

The city imposes tourist taxes (tassa di soggiorno) on accommodations and more recently, even entrance fees for day-trippers.

These can help fund infrastructure and conservation—if well-managed.

3. Export Substitute

Venice doesn’t have a diversified industrial base. Tourism is one of the few export-equivalent services Venice can offer due to its geographic isolation and fragile ecosystem.

---

Conclusion

While tourism contributes significantly in gross economic terms, the net local financial benefit is undermined by:

revenue leakage,

rising costs of living,

poor job quality,

and infrastructure stress.

Thus, the statement is partially true: mass tourism as currently structured in Venice is unsustainable and offers diminishing marginal returns to locals, especially compared to the burdens it imposes

> Now it is like everyone should be traveling few times a year at least

You and I live in different worlds. I only know one person who travels that often, after he became wealthy from a successful buy out. Overwhelmingly the people around me travel a handful of times in a lifetime.

Like eating meat daily. At some point the masses want, and get, what was once just for the elite.

Here in Hungary all major cities have that, in fact, I lived in a very small village with like 100 people, and even that had a damn "container" or whatever and a bench inside, to protect against the rain and to be able to sit down. It has been modernized further by now (yes, for these ~100 people), but what they did then was extremely cheap yet effective, so there is no excuse for lack of benches and shelters at bus stops, really.

And you can down-vote me for me not liking Tokio for the fact that their bus stops have no benches, but that is a must-have for someone like me who has disabilities, and many cities in Hungary (and even small towns) have benches and whatever you could call it (container shelter of some sort) to protect against the rain, so don't tell me Hungary is better in this regard than Tokio, or is it? This is surprising to me. Maybe Tokio does not have enough elderly people or people with disabilities?

In any case, if shitty villages with a population of 100-500 have benches and a shelter at bus stops in Hungary, surely Tokio could do it too, I wonder why they are not doing it.

If you want I could probably find it on Google Maps FWIW. I hope the pictures are old (pre-modernization).

Do not mistake my comment for hatred of Tokio, however. It is just a place that I simply cannot visit for such reasons. There is nothing more to it.

In the US, the land in between the sidewalk and the road is city-owned. As is the sidewalk.