I've come to learn that if a couple people are wrong, it's on them, but if it's a lot of people, it's the system.
They could have taken advantage of this and run a paid shuttle or guided hikes or sold timed tickets to limit the number of people per hour, etc. Maybe only charge people who live outside the region, or offer tickets for a suggested donation.
I'm not saying it needs to be merchandised with a gift shop. The point is, there're a ton of creative ways to limit the number of tourists in that spot at one time with a side effect of revenue to pay for the extra load on public services. But instead they just throw up their hands?
Sounds like a missed opportunity. There are a ton of way dumber things people flock to see. I would think public interest in forest art installations is something that should be encouraged.
I agreed with you before reading the article, but it turns out it's on private property. So no transport infrastructure, and the property owners would have had to shell out a while bunch from their own pockets to do anything.
They also tried putting up signs and hoping visitors would self regulate, but that obviously didn't work out. Hard to blame anybody except selfish assholes in this case.
Aww crap. My bad. I'll put away my pitch fork.
No no, you deserve a stabbing for not reading the article :P
Not everyone wants to start a small business or make money on something. They shouldn't be forced to just because tourists want to see something.
Especially running a tourism-based service. That just sounds like inviting nightmare into your life.
I've come to learn that if a couple people are wrong, it's on them, but if it's a lot of people, it's the system.
They could have taken advantage of this and run a paid shuttle or guided hikes or sold timed tickets to limit the number of people per hour, etc. Maybe only charge people who live outside the region, or offer tickets for a suggested donation.
I'm not saying it needs to be merchandised with a gift shop. The point is, there're a ton of creative ways to limit the number of tourists in that spot at one time with a side effect of revenue to pay for the extra load on public services. But instead they just throw up their hands?
Sounds like a missed opportunity. There are a ton of way dumber things people flock to see. I would think public interest in forest art installations is something that should be encouraged.
I agreed with you before reading the article, but it turns out it's on private property. So no transport infrastructure, and the property owners would have had to shell out a while bunch from their own pockets to do anything.
They also tried putting up signs and hoping visitors would self regulate, but that obviously didn't work out. Hard to blame anybody except selfish assholes in this case.
Aww crap. My bad. I'll put away my pitch fork.
No no, you deserve a stabbing for not reading the article :P
Not everyone wants to start a small business or make money on something. They shouldn't be forced to just because tourists want to see something.
Especially running a tourism-based service. That just sounds like inviting nightmare into your life.