Initiative 1A, the increased lodgers tax, was pitched as a move toward sustainable tourism.
In fact, it is anything but. The new law doubles the budget to $2 million for Visit Durango to attract more tourists. The idea being sold as “sustainable” is that they would try to get more people here during the current shoulder seasons.
The initiative wasn’t about sustainability. It was about sustaining local businesses – by attracting more tourists during the shoulder seasons. The fact that Durango already had many really good restaurants operating continuously suggests that we already had plenty of tourists. The benefit to successfully attracting more people would be more consistent revenue for businesses in town and more consistent income for the service industry employees who work at these places. That is apparently how the notion of “sustainability” came to be used. But that’s not what sustainability is about.
“Sustainability is the capacity to endure in a relatively ongoing way across various domains of life. In the 21st century, it refers generally to the capacity for Earth's biosphere and human civilization to co-exist.” (Source: Wikipedia)
How might this relate to Durango? For one thing, being sustainable implies that we look at our energy supplies and their compatibility with climate change. The planet really does have a serious health problem, and humans are the cause. What can we do about that locally? Promotion of rooftop solar and energy generation that reduces emissions are two things that can be done. The initiative didn’t fund either of these.
Another contributor to climate issues is livestock. In particular, feedlot-raised cattle contribute large amounts of methane, as much as 10% of total U.S. methane emissions. What can we do? We can begin by enhancing our relationship with local ranchers, who provide numerous benefits to La Plata County. Pasture-raised beef doesn’t have the same impacts as feedlot beef. A handful of restaurants in Durango serve locally raised meat and produce. If every restaurant were to do so, we could call that sustainable tourism because we’d be feeding tourists with food grown by our local ranchers.
“Sustainable tourism is the tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities.” (Source: Wikipedia)
What impact do all of Durango’s tourists have on infrastructure? Do we need more police because of tourists? Do more cars cause wear and tear on the roads? Do we need affordable housing for the people who work here? We most certainly do. Yet these are areas that are currently underfunded. More tourists means that residents are going to be asked for more tax money in the not-too-distant future. Having tourists pay into these funds instead of residents would be sustainable tourism.
The city of Durango has an odd decision-making process that is part of the problem. Multiple new motels have popped up recently. Are they necessary? Don’t they negatively impact the hotels that were already here? And what about the drought? Are those of us who live here supposed to restrict our water use so more tourists can visit? Do city councilors not put the whole picture together in their mind’s eye?
Numerous pre-pandemic vacancies on Main Avenue suggest there are other problems facing Durango. A more diverse economy is one of them. If local leadership wants to sustain and improve the economy of Durango, they need to figure out how to rely less on tourism.
As someone who lives here, I’m glad when the tourists leave. The sidewalks and restaurants open up and we can frequent our favorite places without the crowds. When I first heard of the tourist tax, I thought the idea was awesome. Tax the tourists! But bringing in more of them is not sustainable.
Jim McMahon studied ecology because he grew up on rural land in Illinois and was curious about all he saw around him. He lives in Durango.
