"The People" and Tourist Expansion
"Tourist expansion ruins local life" is not something I fully agree with. In fact, I actually think it can help with promoting and amplifying the history of a certain area. But that isn't what this post is; rather, this little dive through history is to explain why tourism and its subsequent expansion, tramples access, the people's will and free spaces in search of more profit.
This post will mainly base itself off the story of the Portside Park, mentioned in chapter 2 of Blomley's 2004 book "Unsettling The City: Urban Land and The Politics of Property". Whilst its main focus point is gentrification, a topic much more complex and storied than this, I believe the point it makes applies just as well to tourist expansion and its destructive capabilities.
The Portside Park, or as it was known by activits at the time CRAB Park, was a small fenced off park area in an otherwise industrial waterfront district [p.46]. The park, owned by the VPC (Vancouver Port Corporation), was seen by the VPC executives and managers to be a desolate and abandoned place. It was "occupied by weeds, rocks and junk, and desperately polluted with toxic silt" and, as described by one VPC representative, "is not a heavily used park." [both quotes from p.47]. This attitude shows clearly what those, less caring of the people's use of the park, was what led to the clash between commercial interests and protesters observed in the summer of 1984 [see Figure 2.9, p.48]. It was the rage of a people who saw, what they believed to be "'the People's Park'" [p.48], being used for something which was anything but for the people. They wanted a compromise, a space that could be "'noncommercial,' that is as consciously different from other proposals for the land, some of which included private 'improvements.'" [p.48]. These private improvements, most likley refer back to remodelling the park, not for the benefit of the locals, but rather for the tourist and gamblers coming into the area [see p.48-49]. Finally, Blomley notes one last quote by one Dunphy M., "'I think our people would feel uncomfortable with and there would be people uncomfortable with us. If development takes the shape that creates that kind of class difference, it could dillute the community's hold on the park'" [p.48-49]. Blomley furhter expands upon this quote on page 168, mentioning exclusion and access to the park as reasons for the protest and blocakdes to occur when and where they did.
To prove that this concept, of capitalist interests phasing out accessibality in search of more profit, is a global one we must look back at Bugibba; specifically the "Perched Beach" and its current privatization.
Bugibba's beaches have been open since the dawn of their opening. They have been spaces where tourists and locals alike can enjoy a nice breeze, the warm water and access to the ocean. In 2006, when the "Perched Beach" was opened as a tourist attraction, it was promised to always be open: "Once again, we shall ensure that the public area remains just that - public: for the free enjoyment of all'" (Borg, 2024). These words have seemingly gone hollow in the minds of those who stand for the public development of Bugibba. Little public funding has gone to it, grants for the construction of property which only hinders public access to it and little enforcing of their shaky 2006 promise are all issues which have led to recent protest. Quoting the editorial posted just about a month ago, "for decades, the laissez-faire attitude of shoreline preservation has led to illegalities" (Times of Malta, 2024). Capitalist interest once again fail to account for the history of Bugibba, made even worse by the unfortunate fact that Bugibba lacks much history to respect/refer back to, to rally activism (refer back to my previous post, "Bugibba and Young (1983)."
The language, the sentiment which was espoused by those unaware of the Portside Park’s history and culture, is similar to that of those who are privatizing the beaches of Bugibba. This is why Bugibba’s history, the history of why its public and available beaches are a cornerstone in Bugibbian life, is important. It is the language that was used by the people of the Seaport, the people of Bugibba and countless other local peoples who have been victims to the trap of tourist expansion. It is this issue, this rabid need for more guests, more tourism and more money flowing into the companies unaware of the history and people they're trampling over. If they do not care for the history, those who do will make them care; make them aware that "the beaches belong to the people" (Times of Malta, 2024).
Thank you for reading. This was a bit more personal because this issue frustrates me to high hell and I fiugred that it was based on at least something, that being the voices of those subjected to overtourism. As always, sources are below. References: Blomley, N. (2004). Unsettling The City: Urban Land and The Politics of Property. Borg, E. (2024). St Paul’s Bay residents to protest over privatisation of public beaches. Times of Malta. (2024). Editorial: The beaches belong to the people.
