I’VE a feeling Joan Savage’s letter (August 29) about Cat Boyd’s earlier article resonates with many, not just myself. Following on from yet another successful summer of festivals, much is being shared on social media about a tourist or city tax.

Here in Edinburgh, though, the flashpoint this summer was those boards around Princes Street Gardens, restricting access to the pavements. It would appear that the council have learnt that they cannot ride roughshod over residents and take us for granted or a stooshie will ensue.

We all acknowledge the economic and cultural role that tourism plays, and whilst many of us are fortunate enough to travel abroad and pay a city tax when we do, surely Scotland has to come up with some ideas to strengthen infrastructures that will “host” tourists here, and enhance their experiences?

After all, if we went abroad and found a lack of public toilets, early-closing cafes, poor public transport, and a local population grudgingly accepting our presence, would we be prepared to talk up that country and encourage others to go visit? I doubt it.

But the experiences of tourists cannot come at a detrimental cost to the quality of life of “locals”. City taxes appear to work abroad, could they do so here? If any such “tax” were to be gathered locally, can it be guaranteed that it would be spent locally and appropriately?

Actual spend, as Cat Boyd rightly points out, wouldn’t always be on the visible, the obvious. Following the introduction of such a “tax”, there would have to be standards set and enforceable, regulatory measures. There could be an argument for a nationally gathered tax that could then be allocated across the country to augment localities with less tourism, or lessen the impact of tourists who drive in, drive out in a day (no overnight stays, no tax). But there has to be action, and rather than councils or government doing nothing – or worse, imposing something on us – can we please have some dialogue opening up about this? Otherwise there will be more aggrieved “locals” and more stooshies to come.

Selma Rahman
Edinburgh

READ MORE: Letters: Residents do not always feel benefits of tourism​

CAT Boyd is right to highlight the problem of Airbnb. The potential profit (£180 per night, according to ads) is contributing to increased rents and reduced availability of affordable rental properties.

However, here in Edinburgh, for those of us living in a building with apartments being let through Airbnb, there are other social problems. Although our building is managed by a factor and the deeds prohibit an apartment being used as a “business”, absentee homeowners are cashing in on the tourism boom.

There are good reasons why Edinburgh City Council should be getting tough on regulating this “wild west” sector of tourism. Short Airbnb lets have increased the volume of foot traffic into our building, which is a cause of concern because the comings and goings of strangers poses a security risk. Further, for every short let, contract cleaners also enter the building and create a disturbance. The increased number of people entering and exiting with luggage causes extra wear and tear to the common areas, and residents pick up the bill for repairs and redecorating. For example, a “guest” punched a hole in the plaster-wall and the cost of the repair was shared between all residents (most of whom are retired) because we couldn’t prove a visitor was responsible for the damage. We also have to suffer anti-social behaviour, from noise when guests leave early in the morning or arrive late at night. Residents at ground level have been woken up 2am because inebriated guests have lost their keys.

City authorities need to introduce regulations that protect the affordable rental market and stop turning apartments into hotels.

John Bratton
Edinburgh

READ MORE: Economic benefits of tourism need to balance social impact​