Comment by prawn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by prawn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There are costs for tourist visas in some countries. There are costs/permits for particular areas (national parks, public buildings, etc). Maybe it feels odd just because there's not much precedent for this particular tier.

The price and details seem pretty reasonable to me. Fundraising to improve the place and reduce burdens on residents dealing with but not profiting from tourism seems smart.

I visited Venice almost 20 years ago, and it was fairly miserable while the daytrippers were there tromping over bridges, but improved dramatically in the evenings and early mornings. I was a backpacker on the road for a year with a constrained budget, but would've been fine with paying $10 had we not stayed overnight.

Flat-out limiting numbers would be a greater restraint, I think. There are a number of places (many in the USA) where visitation is via limited permit - things like climbing Half Dome or visiting The Wave, now climbing Angel's Landing. Even driving through the main roads of Glacier NP or Yosemite NP.

> Fundraising to improve the place and reduce burdens on residents dealing with but not profiting from tourism seems smart.

That's absolutely fine, but I feel like a reservation/ticketing system such as the one proposed is not the best solution. Again, a tourism tax across the city might achieve the same effect without such a system.

In my opinion, the cost (within reason) is absolutely irrelevant. Raising money for the city and locals is a great effort and I applaud it. It is simply the requirement of yet another "hoop to jump through" that bothers me. After years of a pandemic with legally questionable restrictions and requirements throughout daily life, I simply don't want more "hoops to jump through".

You can also visit any other tourist destination you want, without that extra hoop, including places in Italy

>There are costs for tourist visas in some countries

Only in third world countries, or for third world visitors. Freedom of movement between countries and cities is a cornerstone of modern civilization

Unless I'm reading the wrong site, it looks like the visa application fee for someone eligible for the US visa-waiver and ESTA looks to be $14. Not sure if this was an intentional US-3W joke though. Non-VWP looks like Tourism B-2 and $160?

I wouldn't have guessed China and India are third-world. From a quick search, both seem to have visa costs. Thailand, Turkey, also. Someone from China visiting the UK seems to cop UKP100 for a Standard Visitor visa. I'm pretty sure I've paid visa charges for various not-overly-third-world countries in the past.

You got me on Thailand but the rest of the countries you mention are not first world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model

Perhaps I meant to say “non first world” rather than third world, as well

I'm Australian. To visit the USA as a tourist, it's US$160 for a Tourism B-2 visa or US$21 for the ESTA under VWP. I might be missing another option as a tourist, but the ESTA is certainly the encouraged option and one I've used a couple of times before.

Foreigners will soon be required to apply for an ETIAS to visit Europe where previously I didn't need a visa to visit from Australia.

Is the EU third world too?

I find it somewhat concerning that charging tourist visa fees for third-world visitors is listed as an exception, as if the fees and often more laborious interviews and documentation that the majority of people in the world face doesn’t negate the so-called freedom of movement in virtually every western country.

> Only in third world countries, or for third world visitors.

Why did you feel you actually had to say this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com