$800k awarded for historic building project in Philipsburg
State Representative Scott Conklin announced that the work on the Philipsburg building received $800,000 in state funding. The money comes from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency's Community Revitalization Fund Program. In total, they awarded over $4 million to seven projects across Pennsylvania.
Gov. Shapiro proposes $5M to help people with disabilities find, retain employment
It's set to be used on the second phase of a project that will see the building turned into residential and commercial space.
'Work is already underway on the first phase of construction, which involves creating six apartments,' Conklin said. 'The new funding will build on that progress by supporting work to rehabilitate a first-floor commercial space and convert the building's rear, third-floor garage into four affordable housing units.
The building is over 100 years old and was originally a Packard dealership before it became the headquarters for the Stott Coal Company.
'Ultimately, the building will offer 14 new residential units, including eight affordable housing units, plus ground-floor commercial space. It's wonderful when we can repurpose the landscape so buildings that started life serving the community in one way come back to life to serving residents and businesses in new, equally productive ways,' Conklin added.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
6 days ago
- Newsweek
Property Tax Change To Affect 800,000 Americans
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Almost 800,000 homeowners in Utah are set to face higher property tax bills as a result of an 11.11 percent increase voted for by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District board on Monday. The tax increase, which the board said would help the company stay afloat in the coming years, is estimated to add more than $12 a year for the average homeowner in Salt Lake County and $21 a year for businesses. It is a relatively small sum, but it comes on top of years of property tax increases for homeowners across the U.S. Between 2019 and 2024, nationwide property taxes surged by almost 30 percent, according to Redfin, reaching a yearly median of $3,500. In Utah, where the effective tax rate is 0.46 percent and the average home value is $530,250, according to Bankrate, the average property tax on a typical home is $2,439 a year. But the increase is about more than higher housing costs. Local activists say the tax increase will make Utah's municipal water even cheaper than it is now, exacerbating the issue of water waste in the drought-prone state and accelerating the collapse of the Great Salt Lake. Newsweek contacted the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District board and Utah Rivers Council for comment by email on Tuesday. Why Are Utah Homeowners Facing an Increase? The Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District board—one of the largest water districts in the state—said that higher revenues would allow it to strengthen its footing in the next five years and implement much-needed changes. This has to do with the way Utah charges residents for their water use. While Utahns receive a monthly water bill, a significant part of their consumption is paid for through homeowners' and businesses' property taxes. Jordan Valley said the increase in property taxes would not only allow it to keep the cost of water low but also to maintain and build infrastructure vital to keeping taps running in the state. A "Welcome to Utah" sign near Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Page, Arizona, on July 10. A "Welcome to Utah" sign near Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Page, Arizona, on July 10."The benefit of it is having a strong financial ability for Jordan Valley because we're growing and building new facilities for future generations," Alan Packard, the general manager of the Water Conservancy District, said in a statement reported by ABC4. "It's important we have good credit rating and having some of our revenue come from a reliable source like property taxes helps that credit rating and lowers our interest cost we pay when we issue bonds," he added. According to Packard, higher revenues from property tax bills will allow the district to do things like "expanding out water treatment plants and building major new aqueducts." Higher property taxes would allow the company to "manage a loss of revenue of $3.1 million not only this year but each year into the future because that's how much revenue will be generated annually and going forward," Packard said. What Do Local Residents Think? Many Utahns have voiced strong opposition to the property tax increase in the lead-up to its approval on Monday, and not only because it adds to the financial burden carried by many homeowners already struggling with higher housing costs. According to Utah Rivers Council, a nonprofit protecting the state's watersheds, property taxes in Utah are used to subsidize municipal water—making it so cheap "that Utahns aren't incentivized to save it, which is why we constantly see sprinklers watering sidewalks and gutters," the group wrote on Facebook. Stats shared by the group show that the average Utah city consumes 245 gallons of municipal water per capita per day, compared to the U.S. average of 138—placing locals among the more wasteful water users in the country. For the Utah Rivers Council, the state's property tax should be written off entirely, and the system changed so that residents pay the price of the water they consume. Some tax experts and local homeowners are of the same opinion. Stephen Kenyon, a longtime Utah resident living on a fixed income with his wife, Julie, told KUTV: "We get nothing out of this. We don't get any part of any increase—just an increase in taxes. We would like to see those in charge look at where you can cut and do better." In July, The Salt Lake Tribune published an editorial calling for Utah to "stop using property taxes to hide the cost of water" and to change the taxing system to charge for every gallon of water consumed in the state. Criticism against Utah's property tax system is growing, and it has clearly reached the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District board itself—even if the hike ultimately slipped through. Two board members of Jordan Valley were against Monday's increase. "Before we, as government, go and ask them for more taxes, we need to do everything possible to cut costs and tighten our belts," Riverton City Council Member Andy Pierucci, one of the two dissenting votes on the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District board, told KUTV. He added, "I don't feel like we've done that enough yet."
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Yahoo
How the recent IRS filing challenges the boundaries between faith and politics
The 1992 ad began with a warning in bold, all-caps: 'Christian Beware.' The text of the ad went on: 'Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments. Did you know that Gov. Bill Clinton …' The ad, which appeared in the USA Today and the Washington Times, listed Clinton's stances on 'abortion on demand' and 'the homosexual lifestyle' and accused a then-presidential candidate of promoting policies 'in rebellion to God's laws.' The ad posed an urgent question : 'How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?' At the end, the ad solicited tax-deductible contributions. The ad was put out by The Church at Pierce Creek, a non-denominational church in Conklin, New York. It also became one of the rare cases of the IRS enforcing the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision of the U.S. tax code that bars tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. In 1995, the IRS retroactively revoked the church's tax-exempt status, arguing the ad crossed the line into prohibited political activity. In response, the church, operating under the name Branch Ministries, sued. But in the 1999 case Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, the D.C. Circuit upheld the IRS's decision, ruling that the church was still free to speak politically, it just couldn't do so while claiming the benefits of tax-exempt status. For decades, that interpretation stood largely unchallenged — until now. A surprising reversal In a surprising turn, the IRS recently signaled it would stop enforcing the Johnson Amendment in certain cases. In a proposed settlement filed in a federal court in Texas on July 7, the IRS agreed not to penalize two Texas churches for endorsing political candidates during regular church communications. The IRS agreement emerged as part of a proposed settlement in a 2024 lawsuit filed by a coalition of conservative religious organizations, including National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America and two Texas churches — Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church of Waskom. Both argued that the Johnson Amendment violated the First Amendment rights of faith-based institutions, particularly when endorsements were made during worship services. The IRS's decision not to treat such sermons as campaign intervention marked a significant shift from past interpretations of the law. 'Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to the IRS filing. Since the news about the IRS filing, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, urging the court to reject the proposed settlement and defend the endorsement limitation for churches. Although the judge hasn't ruled on either of the proposals yet, the filing has reignited long-running debates about whether the Johnson Amendment protects the integrity of religious institutions or improperly limits their speech. Supporters of the change, including Speaker Mike Johnson and some evangelical leaders, see it as a win for religious freedom and free speech. 'The Founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around,' Johnson wrote on X. President Donald Trump said he loved 'the fact that churches can endorse a political candidate.' Critics, however, warn of the dangers of entangling churches with partisan politics. Because churches are exempt from the financial disclosure rules that apply to other nonprofits, they could become vehicles for untraceable campaign spending if allowed to endorse candidates, experts say. 'Our faith should inform our vote,' said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. 'Our votes shouldn't drive our faith.' Whether the IRS's proposed shift becomes policy or not, it has brought renewed attention to a broader question: What are the appropriate boundaries between faith and politics in a house of worship? And can rules like the Johnson Amendment help preserve both religious integrity and democratic fairness? An 'unorthodox way' While the proposal does not formally change the law, it opens the doors for churches, who choose to do so, to endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status, experts say. 'It does serve as a signal to churches that, at least under the current IRS, some amount of candidate endorsement is tolerated,' said Sam Brunson, professor at Loyola University Chicago, who specializes in tax law. 'It gives kind of a legal reasoning for that, even if it's not a binding legal reasoning.' The filing 'is NOT a repeal of the Johnson Amendment. It does not change the law, nor does it protect all churches from potential enforcement,' Tyler emphasized in a statement. But the way the policy was introduced was significant on its own, Tyler said. 'It was a very unorthodox way to go about tax policy,' she said. Rather than issuing formal guidance, she said, the IRS appears to be attempting to change enforcement by bypassing the normal regulatory process without the act of Congress. Brunson called the filing a ' troubling, but at the very least interesting attempt' to get around procedures for issuing tax regulations. Brian Galle, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who teaches on taxation and nonprofits, said the filing, at least now, does not carry much legal weight: 'I think the promise right now that our charities can participate in politics isn't worth that much — at least for careful lawyers.' If the judge signs the proposed order, the IRS under the current administration would be prohibited from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the two churches. The Trump administration could attempt to formalize a policy change through regulation, but Galle believes that's unlikely. 'The reason the IRS probably won't issue a regulation is because it would be illegal,' he said, pointing to the Supreme Court's 'major questions doctrine,' which bars federal agencies from making significant policy shifts without clear authorization from Congress. The current filing isn't 'legally binding,' he said, which means that the IRS under a future administration could change its mind on the issue. But for now, it marks an important, and controversial, shift in how the IRS interprets the boundary between religious speech and political activity. Churches endorsing candidates Although the cases of the IRS enforcing the Johnson Amendment are rare, church leaders have often endorsed political candidates. One early example dates back to 1800, when the Rev. William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister, publicly opposed Thomas Jefferson's presidential candidacy. Linn published a pamphlet titled 'Serious Considerations on the Election of a President,' in which he questioned Jefferson's religiosity: 'Does Jefferson ever go to church? How does he spend the Lord's Day? Is he known to worship with any denomination of Christians? ... Will you then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence ... vote for Mr. Jefferson?' Linn faced no legal consequences for his advocacy, according to a 1997 Regent University Law Review article, which argued that The Church at Pierce Creek had the right to run the Clinton ad in 1992 and shouldn't be punished. Other historical examples include a 1960 sermon broadcast by a religious leader warning against voting for John F. Kennedy and a 1980 letter from a Catholic archbishop in Massachusetts urging Catholics not to vote for pro-choice congressional candidates. The article concluded: 'The restriction upon religious political speech adversely impacts a central conviction of religion's purpose: the ability to address issues germane to its moral code with the objective of influencing others.' More recently, a number of evangelical pastors have endorsed Donald Trump from the pulpit. For instance, pastor Mark Burns is known as 'Donald Trump's Top Pastor,' and publicly supported the current president at RNC events and rallies. Repealing the Johnson Amendment became one of Donald Trump's top priorities when he ran for presidential office in 2016. Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2017, he said he would 'totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.' Although efforts to repeal the amendment through legislation ultimately failed, the administration announced a shift in enforcement through the latest filing. 'The administration is trying to signal that if other religious organizations also want to participate in politics, then the administration wouldn't go after their tax-exempt status,' Galle said. Risk of 'dark money' Regardless of whether the filing becomes law, tax policy and religious experts warn about potentially alarming implications of partisan politics entering the house of worship. 'If this is applied to all churches, it would be toxic for both churches and our politics,' Galle said. 'It would make essentially every church a dark money organization.' Unlike other 501(c)(3) nonprofits, churches are not required to file annual tax returns (Form 990) that disclose their donors or spending. Engaging in partisan political activity, Galle explained, could open a channel for wealthy individuals, including those with no religious affiliation, to funnel money into campaigns through churches, benefiting from tax-deductible donations and total financial opacity. 'That would give churches a major, unfair advantage in political messaging,' he said. 'And that's bad for our politics and bad for the integrity of churches themselves.' Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, expressed similar concerns. 'This action is not about religion or free speech,' she said in a statement, 'but about radically altering campaign finance laws.' For religious communities, endorsements from the pulpit, whether local or national, risk dividing congregations and distracting houses of worship from their spiritual missions, Tyler said. Even further, it could fundamentally alter the church's purpose, she said. 'If they get engaged in partisan elections for candidates, we really could see that motivation is driving their mission, instead of their mission, their values and their beliefs really driving civic engagement in society,' Tyler said. Public sentiment remains largely opposed to pulpit endorsements. In 2023, a survey found that 75% of Americans opposed churches endorsing candidates, while only 20% supported it. Is the Johnson Amendment constitutional? When the IRS revoked Pierce Creek's tax exempt status over the Clinton ad, the church challenged the decision and sought an injunction against the IRS. In 1999, the district judge ruled that the IRS did not violate constitutional rights and religious freedoms of the church and dismissed the church's claims. But the question whether the Johnson Amendment is constitutional continues to percolate in the public debate. House Speaker Mike Johnson reiterated his view that this tax rule is unconstitutional and argued that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, but rather originates from a 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist association. While Brunson thinks churches should not be endorsing candidates, he believes that the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment is 'shaky at best.' The Supreme Court has identified 'core political speech' — speech that directly addresses government, candidates and elections — as the most strongly protected type of speech, he said. 'That's the speech that the government faces the strictest limits on prohibiting,' Brunson said. 'So it seems like this blanket prohibition is probably at best deeply questionable.' Brunson said ads placed in national or local newspapers aren't the kind of endorsements the IRS appears to be concerned about in the recent filing, which would be more like endorsements made during a sermon or within a church newsletter. Brunson argues the Johnson Amendment is sound and could be considered constitutional with some adjustments. Tyler, however, remains firm that the law does not silence pastors. 'There is nothing that is stopping a pastor's speech,' she said. If the pastor feels they want to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, 'they can give up their 501 (c) (3) tax exemption.' 'Moral judgement' or 'partisan politicking'? Still, politics often finds its way into church life, even without explicit endorsements. Defenders of the Pierce Creek church argued that the Clinton ad highlighted the moral issues at stake of the election, and they viewed it as the church's duty to speak out on the moral qualifications of political candidates. 'The unfortunate result of the I.R.C. (Internal Revenue Code) restrictions is that no meaningful distinctions have been made between moral judgment and partisan politicking,' the 1997 Regent University Law Review article said. Issues versus people — that's how Brunson articulated the appropriate line in addressing the questions of the day that may touch on politics. 'There's a difference between advocating on issues that align with your mission and endorsing a person,' he said. Faith communities also have a stake in local policy debates that directly affect their ability to operate, he said. 'Churches need to be able to protect themselves.' Tax law generally permits churches to advocate on issues like zoning laws, housing policy or poverty, he said, as long as they don't cross the line into endorsing specific candidates. Tyler also distinguishes between being political and being partisan as a church. 'I personally think that Jesus was political the way that he cared about the people and that he lived with and how he was working to change societies and structures,' she said. Historically, churches have played an important but nonpartisan role in civic life: educating voters, helping people get to the polls, hosting forums and even serving as polling places, Tyler noted. 'The law really forbids partisanship,' Tyler emphasized. 'It doesn't forbid political engagement. There's so many ways to be politically engaged without being attached at the hip to a candidate or a particular party.'
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Yahoo
Digital Nomads Are Getting Caught in the War on Tourism
This is part of Reason's 2025 summer travel issue. Click here to read the rest of the issue. "It was a grueling three-hour commute to my Colorado office this morning. I left Telluride with a yellow day pack strapped to my back, and climbed north into the mountains through the golden glow of early-October aspens," wrote Steven K. Roberts in his 1988 book, Computing Across America. Roberts made his way through the remnants of a mining camp before settling at the desk he'd cobbled out of industrial junk the day before. "My chair is an old dynamite crate; my computer a Hewlett-Packard Portable. I flipped open the display, fired up Microsoft WORD, and here I am at work—pattering into a mountainside text file," he wrote. "No, I'm not on vacation. I am a high-tech nomad—pedaling a recumbent bicycle around the United States with a portable computer while funding the journey with a sporadic outpouring of words." A year and a half earlier, Roberts had decided to leave behind his stationary life in the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio. He built a bicycle that doubled as a mobile office—"an eight-foot-long machine bedecked with solar panels and enough state-of-the-art gizmology to start an engineering school"—and embarked on a yearslong 17,000-mile journey throughout the United States. Roberts worked as a computer consultant and freelance writer from the road, filing articles via pay phone. Roberts' lifestyle was completely foreign in the 1980s. People were fascinated by the pioneering digital nomad, whose story landed him on The Phil Donahue Show and the front page of The Wall Street Journal. And it raised big questions about the future of work. Before email, Zoom, and Slack became fixtures of everyday work life, the vast majority of the world's white-collar workers were bound to physical offices. Truly remote jobs were scarce. Slowly but surely, technological innovations allowed more people to work from an entirely different city or state than their coworkers. Then the COVID-19 pandemic showed that millions could work remotely and effectively, thanks to increasingly accessible and functional digital services. From 2019 to 2021, the number of Americans primarily working from home tripled from 9 million to 27.6 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Also during the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world buttoned up their borders and told their citizens to stay home. As the pandemic receded and international travel restrictions began to lift, many newly remote workers were keen to live and work beyond their countries' borders—and foreign governments began to notice. Looking to capitalize on an unprecedentedly mobile work force, countries rushed to create visas tailored to so-called digital nomads. Since summer 2020, dozens have unveiled programs designed to entice remote employees to work from their soil. These programs grant legal status for longer than the typical tourist visa, which may be as short as 90 days. That longer term gives digital nomads the chance to build deeper connections in their host countries and have a wider range of experiences than a tourist might. The benefits to remote workers are obvious, but countries benefit from digital nomad arrangements too. Some collect tax revenue from visa holders. Those that don't still reap the benefits of remote workers spending their foreign incomes and sharing their cultures and skills with neighbors. But not every kind of visitor is welcome in digital nomad–friendly countries these days. Even as governments set up visa programs specifically to attract the world's mobile employees, they're cracking down on tourists and the amenities they enjoy. Digital nomads may soon find themselves in cities and countries that have heavily restricted their Airbnb markets or imposed daily fees on tourists. Can these two approaches coexist? Even though countries don't treat digital nomads as tourists, they don't treat them as permanent residents either. Digital nomads are bound to be caught in the tourist battles. If legal digital nomad status comes with enough downsides, remote workers won't want it—and countries risk missing out on travelers who could help address tourism-related worries. Digital nomadism was already on the rise before COVID-era remote work freed more people to do their jobs from far-flung places. The term digital nomad predates the pandemic by more than two decades. Tsugio Makimoto and David Manners' 1997 book Digital Nomad "predicted a future workforce of globe-trotting travellers logging in from abroad" thanks to "technological advances and humanity's will to explore," reports the BBC. The idea gained more traction in "the 2010s, largely among young people looking for an early-career escape from the decades of 9–5 office work they saw looming before them." Estonia was the first country to unveil a formal digital nomad visa program after the pandemic began, doing so in summer 2020. Since then, dozens of countries have followed suit. More than 20 European nations offer digital nomad visas or other visas that are accessible to remote-working professionals. So do such expat favorites as Panama, Bali, Thailand, and Colombia. Tiny Caribbean island nations, bustling Asian economies, and some of the world's most populous countries have all joined in. Most of those visas allow remote workers to live in a country for at least a year. Most require an application fee and proof of regular income or available funds. Jobs must generally be based outside of the visa-issuing country. Beyond those basics, there's quite a bit of variation. For example, Croatia, the Czech Republic, and Georgia allow applicants to bring their families. Digital nomads who live in Panama can apply for tax residency and may be able to avoid paying taxes at home. (Unfortunately for Americans working abroad, the IRS views "worldwide income" as "subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you live.") Belize lets visa holders' kids attend the country's schools. Dominica offers the nomads duty-free goods and various discounts. In 2023 the World Youth Student & Educational Travel Confederation projected that the global number of digital nomads would reach 40 million by the end of that year and 60 million by 2030. But it's hard to say how large this globe-trotting work force is—is someone a digital nomad, or is he just working on vacation?—and not every digital nomad has a digital nomad visa. It's also difficult to quantify digital nomads' economic power; some put their global economic value in the hundreds of billions. Digital nomad visas are a way for countries to regularize a quasi-illegal practice. Someone who wants to stay in a country on a medium- or long-term basis but isn't able or willing to get an immigrant visa or a work visa might decide to work under the radar. They might be there on a tourist visa and resort to border runs—i.e., quick trips abroad to restart the clock on a limited visa. Working in a local job on a tourist visa is illegal, and the law isn't settled about working in a home country–based job from abroad. Border runs are risky and encourage shorter-term thinking: There's always a chance that someone will be denied reentry. Digital nomad visas can provide more certainty to federal authorities—and to nomads, who can build more permanent lives and deeper connections in their host countries. While digital nomad visas allow foreigners to stay in a country for longer than a tourist visa would, that doesn't mean they have an easy path to permanent residency. Looking at digital nomad schemes in 65 jurisdictions, the migration consultancy firm Global Citizen Solutions found that "three grant direct access to citizenship for time spent as digital nomads"—Spain, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic—"while 15 offer pathways to permanent residency, paving the way to eventual citizenship." Not exactly immigrants and not just visitors, digital nomads occupy a strange legal and social space. That has left them vulnerable to nearby battles. "We think tourist demand is unstoppable," a Barcelona deputy mayor told CNN in March. "Everyone is welcome. But there's a limit. The only possibility is to control the supply." The number of tourists staying overnight in Barcelona just about tripled between 2000 and 2016, jumping from 3.1 million to 9 million. Over 15 million overnight tourists stayed in Barcelona in 2024. While tourism is an important part of Barcelona's economy, many locals are concerned about how the growing number of visitors is changing their home. The city made international headlines last summer when thousands of locals took to the streets chanting, "Tourists go home." Things escalated when some protesters squirted water guns at tourists sitting at outdoor cafés. CNN called it "the water pistol shot that echoed around the world." That episode was a hyperliteral version of the tourists vs. locals debate, but it captured feelings that have been bubbling up in the world's hottest vacation destinations. In many of those places, governments are taking measures to crack down on what they see as excessive or undesirable tourism. Amsterdam directed a "stay away" ad campaign toward British men ages 18–35 who searched terms like stag party, cheap hotel, or pub crawl Amsterdam. Dubrovnik, in Croatia, banned tourists from rolling their wheeled suitcases down cobblestone streets in some parts of the city. Travelers visiting Venice's historic center in spring and summer 2024 faced a daily entry fee of 5 euros. Bali, Indonesia, introduced a 150,000 rupiah ($9.18) entry fee for international visitors last year, and local officials are reportedly considering raising it. Destinations such as Santorini, Greece, and Palma de Mallorca, Spain, have tightened regulations on daily cruise ship arrivals. Critics of "overtourism" say it's about bad tourist behavior. It's also about sheer numbers—the idea that too many people are flocking to too small a space. Some borrow environmentalist language about "carrying capacity" and sustainability when talking about overwhelmed destinations. The world does have plenty of disrespectful tourists and packed city centers. But discussions of overtourism often minimize the economic symbiosis between tourists and locals (or even view it as a negative). The sheer-numbers approach paints all visitors with the same brush, and the government policies stemming from it are likewise broad. Perhaps the most common and disruptive antitourism measure is banning short-term vacation rentals such as Airbnbs. The practice of converting long-term apartments into short-term rentals, which can be a lucrative option for property owners, is often blamed for raising housing costs and shutting residents out of desirable central neighborhoods. That's the argument behind New York City's de facto Airbnb ban, which has driven up hotel prices for travelers. Barcelona has stopped issuing short-term rental licenses and won't renew existing ones, aiming to phase out short-term rentals by 2029. (In May, the Spanish government demanded that Airbnb remove 66,000 rental listings from its site.) Vienna allows homeowners to rent out short-term units for only 90 days per year. Athens is in the middle of a one-year ban on new short-term rental registrations in several city districts. Several digital nomad visas require applicants to secure a 12-month lease (Portugal's and Italy's, for example), but digital nomads nonetheless make heavy use of short-term rentals. A digital nomad might want to live in a country for a year but not in just one city—something that's easier through Airbnb than a traditional lease. Short-term rental services also allow visitors to vet units via reviews from abroad rather than risking signing a lease for a unit that may or may not match online descriptions. Daily entry fees, sightseeing restrictions, and tighter Airbnb markets might seem like minor inconveniences, especially for digital nomads who are ostensibly living beyond day-to-day tourist experiences. But they help create the impression that visitors aren't traveling somewhere to experience a place but to impose upon it. And they eliminate some of the amenities that make the digital nomad lifestyle attractive in the first place. It's been over 40 years since Roberts pioneered the high-tech nomadic lifestyle. The oldest postpandemic digital nomad visa programs turn 5 this year. They came at a unique time in both remote work technology and global mobility, offering an office abroad to anyone with wanderlust and a Wi-Fi connection. Or at least that was the promise. What's been the payoff? By some estimates, it's been minimal. Nomads Embassy, a company that assists digital nomads, aggregates visa approval numbers from some of the top destinations for mobile workers. As of February 2023, Croatia had approved 680 digital nomad visas; Estonia had granted 535 by February 2024; and Malaysia had approved 1,506 by July 2024. In the first year of its digital nomad visa scheme, Portugal granted 2,600 visas. Thailand "has approved approximately 1,200 of its Destination Thailand Visas," reports Centuro Global, a company that helps businesses expand globally. According to Euronews, Spain "granted almost 7,500 digital nomad visas in the first 10 months following its introduction." That's a tiny fraction of the world's digital nomads. There are a few reasons for this. Many digital nomads can get by without visas; not everyone who wants to work remotely abroad wants to do so for a year. Complicated tax situations, scarce or expensive lodging, and doubts over the portability of benefits all might keep someone from making a long-term leap. Then there are all the bureaucratic hoops. That raises the question: What are these visas for? Governments across the world are still trying to figure that out. They talk about "transforming how people in the world choose to work," enabling "a lifestyle that allows you to explore incredible places," and attracting "highly qualified" and "top" professionals in desired fields. But if hardly anybody is taking advantage of the visas, what are those talking points good for? Countries hoping to lure digital nomads "will need to consider both what type of remote worker they wish to attract and how proactive they wish to be," explained the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) in a 2022 report. They might "develop a remote work strategy that integrates immigration priorities with economic development and inclusive growth objectives," it noted. Governments could also "create temporary-to-permanent pathways so that some remote workers on visitor and nomad visas can transition to more permanent residence." "To truly reap the benefits of remote work, governments need to understand that this is about more than generating revenue from digital nomad visa programs," the report continued, "but also making a country an attractive environment for temporary visitors." Visas haven't been necessary to legitimize the digital nomad lifestyle. But they could be an antidote to overtourism. Digital nomadism "offers a steady income stream throughout the year, reducing dependence on peak tourism seasons," wrote Cabo Verde's secretary of state for digital economy last year. "Digital nomads often stay longer and spend more locally than traditional tourists, creating a more sustainable economic model." Making it easier for remote workers to settle abroad in the medium to long term means that more people will have access to a slower, more deliberate way of experiencing a foreign country. Not all will flock to metropolises like Lisbon and Barcelona. Some entrepreneurial digital nomads are setting up co-living spaces in European villages facing depopulation, coming to agreements "with the town hall, with local associations, with businesses, with the community itself," Juan Barbed, co-founder of the co-living company Rooral, told Euronews last year. Countries have much to gain by introducing desirable digital nomad visas or improving existing ones. Digital nomads will never outnumber tourists, but they will suffer if they become collateral damage in a war on tourism. The post Digital Nomads Are Getting Caught in the War on Tourism appeared first on
