Venice's plight

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:12:21 +0200, B Vaughan<me@> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:44:25 +0200, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Build a Venice theme park somewhere remote.
>
>Didn't they already do that in Las Vegas?

and call a place in California Venice.

Maybe they need more
--

Martin

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:33:00 +0200, B
Vaughan<me@> has scripted:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:03:39 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>
>>Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:12:24 +0100,
>>Padraig Breathnach <padraigb@MUNGEDiol.ie> has scripted:
>
>>>The interesting complication would be those visitors who lodged in
>>>Mestre.
>>
>>Anyone staying in Mestre deserves to pay for their cheapness!
>
>I have a new idea: Venice should organize boat tours of the city
>departing from Mestre. The tourists wouldn't even have to get out of
>the boat and they could carry all their trash back to Mestre. It would
>probably satisfy many of the Asian tour groups and even some of the
>others.

In article <13dl831tqgpnqbtq2f5folfvpo1bu7da9k@>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:12:21 +0200, B Vaughan<me@> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:44:25 +0200, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>Build a Venice theme park somewhere remote.
> >
> >Didn't they already do that in Las Vegas?
>
> and call a place in California Venice.

.... and the canals are (now) clean....


jay
Tue Jul 03, 2007
mailto:gofig@mac.com


>
> Maybe they need more

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <d4g4h4.uk> wrote in message
news:1i158ng.2h3r95loo18oN%> The solution is disarmingly simple- I've
alluded to it before. Charge an
> entrance fee to the city for non-residents. Quite easy to do, for
> obvious reasons. It could be applied in different ways, even through
> train tickets into Venice (for people not from the area.) Lobby for
> that- complaining here is pretty pointless...

I am not at all sure that you mean by quite easy. It has been attempted --
but there are many ways to get into the city, as the taxed bus drivers
learned. Via Chioggia, Jesolo, via water taxi from a variety of points, and
the bridge, cars, buses, and your train. Do you suggest ticket booths at all
entrances?
They have tried raising the vaporetto fares, and the day trippers walk. An
entrance fee would raise money, but as someone here says, after paying
thousands to get here, a few extra euro to get into Disneyland/Venice would
not bother people too much..rjf

"Iceman" <oneofcoldm> wrote in message >
> If the tourists bother you so much, then why do you live in the middle
> of Venice? Why don't you move to the mainland? It's not like Venice
> hasn't received huge numbers of tourists for decades - this isn't
> exactly something that happened overnight.

Moving is exactly what many Venetians are doing, thereby eroding the little
tax base even more. The influx has been comparatively overnite. The "number
of tourists" has multiplied many times in the last couple of decades, and
promises, with the Chinese influx, to grow much larger. We don't mind
tourists as such-- they are here for pleasure and we are proud of the
town -- but there has to be a limit in some way or the place won't survive
to welcome tourists in the future. This is not exaggeration.
rjf

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <d4g4h4.uk> wrote in message
news:1i15dfa.1mi9cc24ieh4xN%d4g4h4.uk...
>> And, as I think you suggest, there are plenty of 'quieter' parts of
> Venice.
>

One can hide only for a time-- there is shopping to be done, friends to
visit etc. Sooner or later the hordes must be faced. As I suggested,
Venetians do tend to hide a lot -- and they hate having to do so.

"B Vaughan" <me@> wrote in message
news:71nc93hjqj9svjbss1806ii7cdb99e8m1g@...
> > So are you part of the problem? You aren't a native Venetian.
>
>
Are you implying that only native born Venetians should be allowed to live
here? My relationship, albeit as a foreign type such as you, dates to the
mid-fifties. I predate most natives. Someone above hinted that I should
move, as do you. The rather self righteous attitude seems to be that the
residents should get out to make room for the frolicing tourists. Our
greatest fear is that Venice will become, as it almost is, a Disneyland. No
people live in Disneyland either.
But that's not the point. The problem is not whether there are tourists, it
is that the tourists are doing more and more irreparable damage to what is a
small and fragile town. And the future holds the promise of more and more.
rjf

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:53:18 +0100, d4g4h4.uk (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>The Reid <mikereidclothing@freedomnames.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Following up to d4g4h4.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
>> (*)) wrote:
>>
>> > Flying is a
>> >small part of any kind of pollution.
>>
>> doesn't wash.
>>
>> when you make a decision how to make a journey, the total input to
>> pollution from that kind of transport isn't the point. Its what you
>> are adding by making that choice.
>
>Yes- I choose not to drive a car.
>
>> >Cars are the real transport
>> >pollution demons,
>>
>> we are close to pollution free cars,
>
>I wish.
>
>> not so planes.
>
>You're talking utter bollocks. Aircraft are 70% more efficient today
>than they were 40 years ago- 20% more efficient than they were 10 years
>ago, and the aim is for a further 25% efficiency in fuel by 2020.
>
>There is actually a lot of demand for extreme fuel efficiency in
>aircraft, as it makes a direct result on the profitability of the
>airlines.
>
>> >and even in built up cities, such as the one I live
>> >in, I see people making unnecessary journeys all the time- to the
>> >supermarket etc. Not to mention trips to second homes in the UK.
>>
>> so you constantly say, im just pointing out your clay feet.
>
>Your point is noted. But unless you admit the problem of cars, why
>should I take anything you have to say about the environment seriously?

Why not join the rest of us, David?

Deja vu. It must be Monday.
--

Martin

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:12:31 +0100, d4g4h4.uk (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>The Reid <mikereidclothing@freedomnames.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Following up to d4g4h4.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
>> (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >> are you claiming hydrogen cells and electric dont exist?
>> >
>> >I'm claiming, because it's true, that they are not available in any way
>> >that matters.
>>
>> buses are here now, cars will be soon.
>
>I thought you said cars were here now too?
>
>Hardly any buses are emission free. Given that in cities, it would be
>easier to make them so, it shows just how uphill a struggle this will
>be. Governments won't put their money where their mouths are. If the UK
>government said tomorrow that there would be a £50 tax on all return
>flights, and that this would be directly invested in improving public
>transport, I'd support it. Indeed, the UK government is trying to get to
>a situation where the railways actually pay for themself, and they don't
>need to put any money into it. Crazy, but it's true.

The UK railways receive subsidies of GBP 8 billion a year in UK, a factor of
eight compared to pre-privatisation.

Subsidising flying pigs has more future.

>
>> It just isnt true planes are improving while cars are
>> not.
>
>It's not true that I said that either.

Humour the silly bugger :-)
--

Martin

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:00:39 +0100, d4g4h4.uk (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:12:31 +0100, d4g4h4.uk (David Horne, _the_
>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>> >Indeed, the UK government is trying to get to
>> >a situation where the railways actually pay for themself, and they don't
>> >need to put any money into it. Crazy, but it's true.
>>
>> The UK railways receive subsidies of GBP 8 billion a year in UK, a factor of
>> eight compared to pre-privatisation.
>
>They've also told to the operators to keep raising fares above inflation
>to cut down on that, despite already having high fares and relatively
>busy railways.

Seems a reasonable way to go if the revenue isn't enough to pay for privatised
railways, owned by companies that pay shareholders a dividend.
--

Martin