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.