This is an English translation. The original Dutch article is authoritative.
The new coalition agreement of PRO Amsterdam and D66 Amsterdam states that the residence criterion (i-criterium) will not be introduced. For coffeeshops in Amsterdam, this is the most important passage in the agreement.
Under the heading "Tackling crime" it says, literally:
_"We are choosing a targeted and proportionate approach to safety. That is why we are not starting any new pilots with preventive searches and we are not introducing the residence criterion."_
This makes it clear that the residence criterion is not merely absent from the coalition agreement. It is explicitly stated in black and white that it will not be introduced. That makes a political difference. Had the agreement said nothing about the residence criterion, there would have been more room later to come forward with a proposal. Now there is a clear agreement between the coalition partners.
PRO Amsterdam consists of GroenLinks and PvdA, together holding 17 seats. D66 has 8 seats. The coalition therefore holds 25 of the 45 seats on the city council and so has a majority. In the years ahead, the coalition cannot agree to introduce or enforce the residence criterion without going back on its own coalition agreement.
For the coffeeshop sector this is an important outcome. In recent years the residence criterion has repeatedly returned in the debate about tourism, crowding and safety in the city centre. Time and again the suggestion was raised that excluding foreign visitors from coffeeshops would help to reduce tourism and nuisance. That assumption has never been convincingly substantiated. Earlier research in fact showed that coffeeshops are not the main reason tourists come to Amsterdam. Visitors come to the city for many different reasons — walking, museums, architecture, hospitality, nightlife and culture. Attention has also repeatedly been drawn to the risk that the residence criterion does not make demand for cannabis disappear, but pushes it onto the street. Regulated sales would then be replaced by uncontrolled trade. That affects not only coffeeshops, but also residents, entrepreneurs and safety in the city centre.
It is therefore important that the new coalition now explicitly rules out the residence criterion under the heading "Tackling crime". This fits with a targeted and proportionate approach to safety, not with symbolic measures that may move the problem rather than solve it.
The debate about tourism, crowding and safety will continue. The coalition agreement also contains firm measures for the city centre, such as an increase in the tourist tax, research into a broader contribution by day visitors, further roll-out of mandatory permits in the city centre, and ending city promotion aimed at tourists.
But on the residence criterion, the agreement is clear: it will not be introduced.