That poster does have a say in it. They can vote for politicians who'll ban it. And if things boil over and their voices aren't heard, riots are very common in continental Europe. Particularly when flagrant wealth divides are involved.

Talking down like that to locals really fans the flames of the latter solution. Probably not good to do it.

Are riots really "very common" in continental Europe or is that just a trope?

There are some. There was recently an antisemitic riot in Amsterdam. Police ended it quickly however. There are also some organized protests (including protests against tourism in Barcelona, but I wouldn't call these "riots"). I think their prevalence is about the same as in the US.

Ban what? City-scale tourism and immigration? How? Passport controls on the city borders? Walls? We are not at this stage yet.

If you live in a nice city (and Barcelona is a great city, truly a world's treasure), it attracts tourists, by definition. I don't think anything can be done about that (except maybe ban AirBnB and introduce hotel tax -- but they will just live in places nearby and drive in by cars). You can also of course make your city less nice (by riots, crime, graffiti, trash, whatever), but this is shooting oneself in a foot.

The "problem" has no solution. Great cities are attractive, people want to go there, and have the legal right to.

Locals can do things to regulate tourism by economic means, but you can't say "don't come", except on state level. The city is not your property.

I don't know why you think that. Some cities (Venice for example) are already implementing controls to limit demand. Turn the political heat up and it can happen anywhere.

They're not banning tourists. Just charging them. Big difference.

If they can charge $1, they can charge $x where x is high enough to make it an effective ban.

Venice is unique, it is an island with a single bridge connecting it to mainland. It is easy to put a toll booth there. And at this point, it is more a city-wide museum than a living city anyway, the money will go to maintenance. The regulation is not there because of the protests of the residents, there are not many remaining.

Other cities would require a wall.

>Other cities would require a wall.

No they wouldn't. Just higher fees on hotel rooms or congestions charges for cars. It's possible to reduce the numbers visiting any city.

These are fine, though don’t help much and bad for local economy and prosperity (tourists bring money and buy food and things from local businesses which employ local people and pay local taxes). “You can’t come here” is not fine, and thankfully infeasible.

The same logic should also work for states; people, however, are irrational in this regard.

>“You can’t come here” is not fine, and thankfully infeasible.

If a city feels its culture or inhabitants quality of life is being adversely affected by tourism then it is fine to control the numbers.

If you look at places like Venice part of the criticism was the hordes of people arriving that don't spend any money. They bring packed lunches and just clog the place up. There are plenty of products and services that manage demand by increasing prices, I can't see why these places should be any different.

Luckily it is feasible.