Seems odd, to purposely restrict income. It would be worse for residents long term if necessary infrastructure is absent. Without new hotels, older hotels will become decrepid. There will be no appetite to refurbish where additional rooms cannot be added.
Surely it would have been better to build new hotels in areas that need an influx of construction or people. It would take time but should revitalise areas. If drug tourism is the problem, then make efforts tonstop that, not hamstring tourism in general.
In sating that, they may have already tried. I know they have already made restrictions on drug purchases for residents only a fewbyrsrs ago. Perhaps its not working. It just seems like this would be a verybslow fix, where the negative effects are also very slow and difficult to correct later.
I think you are missing the point why people take issue with overtourism.
Amsterdam isn't a themepark, it's a city where people actually live, grew up, have lives. And overtourism tends to hollow out what makes the city authentic. The houses get converted to AirBnB's and hotels, the regular shops, pubs and restaurants can't find regular customers anymore so start catering to tourists instead, etc. This results in a sort of Disneylandification of your city. It's generally a nuisance to the inhabitants of a city.
Ultimately a city is for the people who live there, not the people who visit.
Tourism can be good for the local economy, but there is only so much people are willing to put up with.
Edit: Also, old hotels are allowed to be renovated, as long as the number of sleeping places in the city doesn't increase
A new hotel in Amsterdam can only be built if another hotel closes, if the number of sleeping places doesn't increase, and if the new hotel will be better, for example more sustainable.
They should just ban rental companies like AirBnB and ban short term rentals of homes. And if anyone puts a home up for rent on these sites the city should just eminent domain that property and turn it into social housing.
AirBnB is already severly restricted in several parts of Amsterdam (though a court ruling last year did overturn those restrictions in some neighbourhoods)
That's basically impossible because there's also legitimate good coming out of short-term rentals if done correctly so courts won't let a total ban stand.
I think Berlin does it right: You can rent out your apartment while you're away for a maximum of 90 days a year, unlimited if you live there with the guest, otherwise you need a hotel license which you won't get for a residential apartment if there's a housing shortage (and there is). In either case you'll need to register with the city and display that register number in your listing on airbnb or elsewhere so any offering that doesn't include one can get roflstomped by the authorities.
aol.com
Hot