The “access fee” and the role of the “social” in the management of tourism in Venice

A diversionary strategy

The first numerical data on the effects on tourist flows of the introduction of the entrance ticket to Venice demonstrate the complete lack of influence of the measure implemented by the municipal administration on them. This was to be expected. Previous experiences of this practice in other places, for example in one that is of my direct knowledge, Lake Braies indicated by global social networks as one of the 10 places to visit in the world and where in summer the entrance ticket to the valley for each car is even 20 euros, have even given opposite results: the presence of tourists has increased, now not only at peak times, but throughout the year.

The municipal administration of Venice shows the collections, even if – declares the councilor Michele Zuin – “the number of paying people is not the point of the measure in question, given that the “access fee” is designed to be a system of control and management of flows”, and Mayor Brugnaro says of

having aimed to give a cultural signal to the people who come to Venice, the idea of ​​defending the city.

Of course, in Venice there is control of flows, it has become more systematic and widespread, but also cumbersome and invasive in the lives of citizens, raising strong doubts about the constitutionality of the control device put in place.

There was no deterrent effect, on the contrary: the number of tourists in Venice has increased since the introduction of the entry fee: the data ruthlessly confirms this.

At the same time, with a sort of (apparent) schizophrenia, without taking into account the devastating effects on the delicate balance of the lagoon, this administration is preparing the conditions for a greater presence of large ships, designing new access routes from the mainland to the historic city and islands of the lagoon, which, clearly, are destined not to lighten but to aggravate the pressure of overtourism on a territory on which the same criteria that apply to the defense of the natural environment should instead be applied.

The territory is also a “living” that reproduces itself thanks to the maintenance and enrichment of its internal balance, economic, social and cultural “biodiversity”. It is very clear that monoculture, whether biological or economic, is typical of situations of colonial dependence: it unbalances, de-qualifies, weakens the social fabric of the territory in which it is practiced, making it passive, subordinate and less resilient to systemic shocks (such as as seen with Covid), which are not only always possible, but indeed inevitable in a world as strictly interconnected and interdependent as today’s.

The issue at hand is to remedy an excess that unbalances the life of the Venetian territory and is suffocating the city. Common sense would require that, to begin to “grasp the problem”, a maximum limit on annual and daily tourist presences should first be indicated: establish when what is in itself a Well (tourism) passes into excess and therefore becomes a bad it concerns the responsibility of politics (with the necessary support of technicians) and should be a precondition for the definition of any rebalancing strategy.

But in the project of the municipal administration of Venice no limit is set on tourist presences, only a possible increase in the ticket on overcrowded days. Yet only after the limit of sustainability of the tourist presence for the city environment is clearly established (not only for the historic city but for the entire municipal territory) can we seriously proceed to establish the intervention measures and the methods with which to implement them .

The lack of setting the limit makes Brugnaro’s promise to “defend the city” vain. When, under what conditions, does he think the city will be defended? There is no answer.

Failure of the municipal administration’s strategy? Not if, beyond the declarations, we look at all of his practical decisions. These appear to be dictated by a coherent and articulated strategy, in which the “access fee” has an important function: in addition to that of extracting data on people’s lives (in harmony with the strategy of “surveillance capitalism”), that of a decoy, of diversion.

In the void of culture and government practice in which this administration maintains the territory, certain interests directly govern, unbalancing, overbearing and predatory, mostly not even local. This gives the sense of a degeneration to the point of distorting politics, which, according to its original vocation, should be aimed at the harmonization of interests, while now it acts as a veil and support for the overwhelming predominance of some.

Yet real political decisions in the international and national framework are not lacking. To give just two examples: the city of Amsterdam is implementing a dissuasion campaign, a sort of reverse advertising (“don’t come here”) aimed at tourists. It has prohibited the opening of new B&Bs (as Barcelona has done in its historic center for several years), the construction of new hotels, it has reduced tourist flights, the arrival of large ships, but it is also encouraging alternative business sectors to tourism, with the clear intention of re-establishing a balance that favors economic and social biodiversity in its territory. In Italy, the autonomous province of Bolzano has set a maximum limit of beds for tourist reception throughout the territory under its jurisdiction and has undertaken to ensure it is respected.

In Venice, unfortunately, none of this happens: the municipality has long had the legal tools to place a limit on tourist rentals but does not do so. On the other hand, he invents unsuccessful diversions which, however, serve very well as weapons of mass distraction.

The “social” archimedical lever of the city

In this situation of emptiness (desired and pursued), the “social” (meaning by this term the varied galaxy of associations, groups, committees, etc., particularly lively – thank goodness – in our territory), can play a primary role .

As also confirmed by the last, important meeting of 15 June at the Pescheria di Rialto, the denunciation of the false nature of the solution adopted by the municipality (albeit experimentally, but under what conditions can we say that the experiment was successful?) and the opposition to the suffocation of the city due to “straturism” can be the catalyst of the social.

But opposing is not enough. The same complaint and opposition are destined to lose their effectiveness if they are not accompanied by the indication of a credible alternative perspective. The task of indicating alternatives would traditionally fall to politics, but today this appears self-referential and therefore weak.

The social itself should therefore take on a propulsive, even if not exclusive, role. But, despite his vitality, the dispersiveness that still characterizes him keeps him in a gaseous state that makes it impossible for him to overcome the fateful threshold of critical opposition.

To take on the promoting role that the situation requires of it, society must mature, “force” its dispersiveness beyond its natural condition of perennial “nascent state”, without giving it up because it is a precious and essential manifestation of the human and civil vitality of our territory . It must give itself its own reflexivity, make itself something more than what it is: “social subjectivity” being “he” – the social – a “Yes impersonal”.

Talking about the social as a subject is a paradox, an oxymoron: the subjects, strictly speaking, are only political or, if group, private, or individual. The social as such is impersonal and can only become a “subject” in a very particular sense: making itself “more social”, that is, less gaseous, more cohesive. Or by doing system. In its systemic impersonality it can acquire weight, critical mass an attraction that allows it to act as a base and pivot for a vast political and cultural group that really wants to solve the city’s problems, not pretend to do so.

For this reason the “social” must place itself at the center of attention. Mobilization against and the necessary “practice of objectives” is not enough, it must acquire a systemic mentality and practice, work internally to make itself at the same time more open, more cohesive, more attractive and therefore more influential on the city’s orientations .

It must have its own memory, a collective ability to learn and, consequently, to process. It must be clear to everyone that:

1) more cohesion requires/involves more reflexivity;
2) more reflexivity (beyond the necessary critical moment) generates more proactive capacity;
3) more capacity to propose alternatives equals more strength to implement them.

The (systemic) cohesion of the social is therefore the Archimedean lever to lift the city and the territory from the current state of depression and impotence in which it finds itself today.

It is achieved – overcoming occasionalism – through the creation of permanent coordination structures between associations, groups, committees, etc.; the improvement of horizontal tools (networks) of internal information and circulation of ideas and experiences that flourish in the territory; the coordination and sharing of initiatives, the promotion of mutual cooperation between associations and groups to carry out shared projects. Typically, what is (in)different today must become increasingly complementary.

A dynamic society, less gaseous, more systemic and aware, should be able to dialogue with experts, to store knowledge and experiences, to process them and socialize them through the constant practice of participatory democracy. Only from here, from this process carefully thought out, organized and implemented, without improvisation, can the alternative be born capable of giving a healthy boost to politics and to the whole city.

We know this from experience of past mistakes: it is not an easy path. Everything is very delicate: at any moment everything can crumble in our hands. But we are not starting from scratch, something in this sense has been done over the years. First of all, it’s about enhancing and optimizing what is there. Among other things, a cultural, but also practical, alliance can be established with conscious tourism, a friend of the city, which exists and is in principle available, if given the means and opportunities, to cooperate in its salvation .

Saving the city and the territory from the extractive/destructive use that is being made of it means setting a complex objective. And complex problems require complex solutions. The simple solutions that are indicated today are false panaceas and real alibis.

But a reflective social person who has acquired a systemic culture and mentality can lay the foundations of the alternative. It is a question of discussing and establishing exactly the stages of the necessary – let’s say – “resocialization of the social”.

Cover image: 14 November 2010, complete with a ribbon cutting ceremony, godmother the (then) international local divine-divaporno Vittoria Risi, Venessia.com celebrate the birth of VeneLand, an imaginary water city full of exciting attractions, to be discovered by paying an entrance fee. (©Andrea Merola)

The “access fee” and the role of the “social” in the management of tourism in Venice was last modified: June 17th, 2024 by ALBERTO MADRICARDO

The “access fee” and the role of the “social” in the management of tourism in Venice
last edit: 2024-06-17T19:50:29+02:00
from ALBERTO MADRICARDO