Amsterdam does indeed have a choice; choose a city in balance

The lawsuit brought by the Stichting _Amsterdam heeft een Keuze_ against the municipality of Amsterdam revolves around the question of how the city should handle tourism pressure and liveability. The Foundation asserts that the municipality, based on the Tourism in Balance Ordinance, is obliged to take measures to reduce tourism and nuisance. In this context, coffeeshops and the i-criterion are explicitly mentioned as a possible policy option. Although coffeeshops are not a party to the proceedings, this lawsuit directly affects their position. The outcome of the procedure could set the direction for future policy and thus for the way in which Amsterdam tries to find a balance between liveability, safety, and an open city.

The core of the debate is not whether tourism pressure exists, but which measures actually contribute to a city in balance. Tourism pressure is determined by visitor numbers, duration of stay, distribution in time and space, and behaviour in public spaces. The i-criterion addresses none of these factors. The measure exclusively regulates where cannabis is purchased and therefore has no direct influence on the number of visitors or their movements through the city. Presenting the i-criterion as a tourism measure ignores that reality.

Research shows that for a portion of tourists, coffeeshops are a reason for a visit, but not the most important one. Walking through the city, museums, architecture, the hospitality industry, and nightlife are structurally mentioned more frequently. Only a limited group of visitors indicates they would stay away if access to coffeeshops were restricted. The idea that tourism pressure would substantially decrease as a result is not supported by the facts. Consequently, the necessary goal-means relationship that one should expect from drastic policy is lacking.

What does change when the i-criterion is implemented is the purchase channel. The demand for cannabis does not disappear when regulated sales are restricted. A portion of the visitors will continue to come and will divert to street dealers and informal networks. This shifts sales from a controlled and visible environment to public spaces and illegality. This displacement effect is not a theoretical assumption, but a predictable consequence that aligns with existing figures on street dealing and perceived nuisance in parts of the city centre.

This shift has direct consequences for public order. Street trade is diffuse, difficult to control, and in practice not limited to cannabis. Sales take place without age verification, without information provision, and often in combination with other forms of illegal trade. This increases the chance of nuisance, intimidation, and safety incidents, and affects the sense of security in the city. While coffeeshops are fixed, licensed locations, the i-criterion moves the issues to places where supervision and enforcement are much more difficult.

From the perspective of enforceability and regulation, the i-criterion is also a risky choice. Coffeeshops make supervision, enforcement, and the separation of markets possible. By closing off regulated sales, a controllable system is exchanged for an uncontrollable market, while enforcement capacity in the city is already under pressure. Enforcement shifts from supervision at fixed locations to reactive action in public spaces, with less control and higher costs.

The lawsuit by Stichting _Amsterdam heeft een Keuze_ thus touches upon a fundamental policy question. Are measures chosen based on effectiveness and factual consequences, or on the basis of assumptions and symbolism? Deploying the i-criterion as an instrument against tourism pressure does not solve the problem, but displaces it and simultaneously increases the risks to public order, safety, and enforceability.

Amsterdam does indeed have a choice. That choice is not between tourism or no tourism, nor between coffeeshops or no coffeeshops, but between policy that demonstrably contributes to balance and policy that creates new problems. Those who choose a city in balance choose effectiveness over symbolic politics and measures that keep the city liveable and manageable.