To a lesser extent, many USA immigrants are trying to make everything around them to their liking instead of integrating themselves to a new culture… And a lot of mexicans are happy to lick their soles expecting to become one of them or be accepted by them.
This is how demand works. If the population of an area want a Starbucks, they get a Starbucks. I’ve lived in many areas that were cool until they became “cool,” if you catch my meaning. Prices went up and I had to leave. It’s tempting to blame the people who came in and were willing to spend money. But while trying to find the root cause of the problem, they quickly become… Not the problem.
I’d say few people go into a new area and think, gosh I want to make this different. They went there because they wanted to be there. If a Starbucks pops up, they aren’t exactly upset, but they probably could live without it.
The problem is the people who own these places. Those people aren’t the ones protesting. And if you want to think of it from a purely ownership standpoint, the people protesting have no right to complain what the people who own the land want to do with it.
I have no idea what the solution is beyond rent control and price caps. Those two things will keep costs down regardless of tourism, discouraging landowners from changing the area to suit the demand of tourism.
Additionally, preventing foreign companies from establishing their businesses in the region would preserve the local culture. However, as previously mentioned, it is the individuals who own this land—both in a literal and a political sense—who are facilitating this occurrence.
To a lesser extent, many USA immigrants are trying to make everything around them to their liking instead of integrating themselves to a new culture… And a lot of mexicans are happy to lick their soles expecting to become one of them or be accepted by them.
This is how demand works. If the population of an area want a Starbucks, they get a Starbucks. I’ve lived in many areas that were cool until they became “cool,” if you catch my meaning. Prices went up and I had to leave. It’s tempting to blame the people who came in and were willing to spend money. But while trying to find the root cause of the problem, they quickly become… Not the problem.
I’d say few people go into a new area and think, gosh I want to make this different. They went there because they wanted to be there. If a Starbucks pops up, they aren’t exactly upset, but they probably could live without it.
The problem is the people who own these places. Those people aren’t the ones protesting. And if you want to think of it from a purely ownership standpoint, the people protesting have no right to complain what the people who own the land want to do with it.
I have no idea what the solution is beyond rent control and price caps. Those two things will keep costs down regardless of tourism, discouraging landowners from changing the area to suit the demand of tourism.
Additionally, preventing foreign companies from establishing their businesses in the region would preserve the local culture. However, as previously mentioned, it is the individuals who own this land—both in a literal and a political sense—who are facilitating this occurrence.