Hell is other people:
I’ve not seen it quite like that before:
Venice has a won a court battle to hold a referendum on whether the city should have autonomy from mainland Italy, which could save it from devastating tourism.
Activists claim the city needs its own council and mayor as it is currently being neglected while 20 million holidaymakers descend onto its narrow streets every year.
The Venetian population has plummeted by 117,000 people since its peak last century with just 53,000 left in the city – which has not had its own mayor since 1926.
Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has urged locals not to vote and was defeated in a court challenge. He has introduced an entry fee for tourists to raise funds for local residents to try and sway their decision.
The council also claims separation would mean end the relationship between mainland Italy and Venice – including the expensive rubbish collection from the waterways.
‘On the other hand the cash that tourists spend on water buses in Venice helps Mestre to pay for its public transport, while the value of Venice’s acts as a guarantee for the loans taken out by the council,’ The council’s financial officer, Michele Zuin, said.
Some four referendums have been held since 1970 on the autonomy for Venice but none have been passed.
Not sure what to think on that one. Posts here on the Venetians don’t help the matter much further although the history of wars and how the Templars evolved, the Welfs too is of note in itself.
I’ve not been often to Venice – memory fades but it was two or three times, all in summer. This commenter has:
I’ve been to Venice many times, once staying for 3 months and in summer it’s ridiculous you can barely move. They would not let more than a few thousand people into St Paul’s due to health and safety, numbers of people from nightclubs to busses have to be controlled. So I agree, limit visitor numbers so that visitors and locals both have a more pleasant experience of a beautiful set of amazing islands.
Yet another post today where I’m not all that sure what to think on this issue of tourism in Venice, tourism in general.
As for Venice – historical, yes, pretty square, awful back lanes, smelly, yes, hyper-expensive rip-off, most certainly.
Looks far worse in the photos today than earlier, those huge cruise monstrosities – aaaagggghhhh! Who would pay good money to be trapped on one of those? Sounds like hell on earth – then again, Venice once was.
Worst three places for tourists I went were central London on a late August Saturday, Versailles and Florence in summer.
Most surprisingly non tourist-infested?
Well, one can get lucky – Vienna was OK, Paris seemed reasonable the times I was there but there was not the death cult presence in such numbers then.
Worth visiting? Not sure they are now, think the golden age for travel is gone, too dangerous now, loons everywhere, also older and more decrepit, even flying seems horrendous – it was the last time I did it.
Plus the documentaries can be excellent today, the independent ones and what you get after some time is this fatigue of always being shunted into ‘tourist areas’.
Please be advised that Davide Losito has sent this correction:
There’s a basic mistake on your article, the referendum is held to separate the historical city of Venice (the part in the middle of the lagoon) from the dryland part called Mestre, which was a separate town in 1926, not to separate Venice from the rest of Italy. This is not possibile in our country, you cannot ask for a city state in our laws. It would be an attack to the constitution.
Referendum asks if people wants to separate Venice from Mestre: the city in the sea, from the city on the land. And nothing more.
It is not true that Venice has not had its own mayor since 1926, at the one that is elected is called “Mayor of Venice”, who administrates the whole town, made of 6 municipalities.
It is not true that cour “defeated” the Mayor who asked not to vote. The truth is that people asked for the referendum BEFORE this Mayor was elected, and BEFORE Italy created the “Città Metropolitana”, which has special laws on how to deal with aggregations and separations of towns. So the Mayor pointed out that with the CURRENT new law, the referendum was illegitimate.
The Cour ruled that the referendum is legit, because it was asked before the new law.
THEN, after the court ruled this, the Mayor suggested people not to to go vote because this is the FIFTH referendum held on this topic since the ‘60s. People always voted not to separate the two towns.
Please consider making a news post with correct informations.